Jump to content

Talk:Sex position/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Focus

  • This article seems to be very heterosexually-focused--perhaps it would be a good idea to re-word it to make it more neutral regarding sexual orientation.Geranian Nestor (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The article seems fine to me. But maybe your problem with it was taken care of before I looked at it. Either way, I just fixed it up a bit more. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have cerebral palsy and my boyfriend doesn't what position is best for both of us. I have leg promblems but i can walk normal now. i'm 5'5 and he 5'11. i don't want a positon that hard 4 me to that will make me have pain in my legs and hip suggestions-unknow user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.15.191.51 (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Move?

Titfucking

  • Mammary intercourse: using the breasts together to stimulate the penis through the cleavage. (Should not be confused with a "boob job" meaning to have augmentive surgery done on the breasts.) Also called a titjob, titty-fucking, a tit-wank, or a muscle fuck.

A muscle fuck is a word from the gay community and refers to male anal sex. Some troll added it. Please can a mod remove "muscle fuck" from that list?92.252.9.230 (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Sandwich picture" in fact illustrates "train sex"

Unless the furthest-left man has an infeasibly long penis.

We should not use the word "uncircumcised"

We should use the words "natural", "normal", or "intact" to describe normal male genitalia that have not been modified or mutilated. Do we refer to people with normal oral anatomy as "untonsilectomized"? Or normal female anatomy as "unmastectomized"? Or men who have not had a vasectomy as "unvasectomized"? I would have corrected this error myself, but the article is semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.24.25 (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. 129.215.113.85 (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The mention of someone being uncircumcised makes no sense in-context, since to "Dock" you would need a full-sized foreskin. Obviously this means that the person in question would not be circumcised. It makes sense without the "uncircumcised" word addition, so I vote that the word be removed and not replaced. This is more a question of international POV. If we're in the US, the word "uncircumcised" seems okay, but in England and most of the world, it would seem to be a redundant phrasing in this context.98.225.230.65 (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it, guys. MaraquanWocky (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


WOW! Way to go pushing your agenda, and congratulations on no one effectively blocking your POV pushing. Jersey John (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What type of agenda do you think is being promoted here? Jarble (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not Mostraga (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not Mostraga (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Other positions - scissor

Under "other positions" the description of the scissors position should be modified to say "manual stimulation of the breast and/or clitoris" rather than just "breast stimulation." Source: From personal experience, even a previously non-orgasmic woman may reach orgasm if the male partner is inside her in the scissors position, with left hand stimulating her right nipple, and right hand stimulating her clitoris.

Rkschaffner (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Under the missionary position the possibility of the man being on top with the woman underneath but the woman has her legs together and flat seems to have been overlooked. The merit of this position is that the largest part of the man's cock engages the tightest part of the woman's cunt - which has its merits. 89.195.66.25 (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple penetration

Why isn't their any mention of urethra penetration? While not common, some women have made a name for themselves by being able to do it (the amazing Ty to name one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.8.117 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Really you are not talking about a sexual position. You are specifying a type of penetration that may or may not be achieved through a variety of means (positions), This being the case perhaps there should be a separate page for discussion of different types of penetration.
To expand this point it's my opinion that some of the discussion or imagery diverge from the page topic/title in proper. The page is supposed to be informative on "sexual positions" so there shouldn't specific discussion about penetration. For example there is an entire section for the discussion of anal penetration which is superfluous as meany of the positions described in this section are the same positions described in other sections. such as doggy style and missionary. This section appears to be included only to describe anal penetration. This section can almost certainly be eliminated by adding to the already existing descriptions in other areas that both vaginal and anal penetration can be achieved in said position. This would seem to be more concise and less distracting from that page topic.
Furthermore the subject matter discussed in the topic "other positions" seems to be inconsistent as no positions are actually described. The only descriptions here are types of penetration. these types of penetration can be achieved from multiple positions. For example the depiction of anal fisting has the man laying on his back while this depicts the type of penetration being discussed the same penetration can be achieved doggy style as well and laying on the side.
I am unsure of what article standards the things I have mentions are actually in violation of but I'm pretty sure that most of these things are in violation of one or more article standards.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to plural title, if only to not override the page history of the singular. — kwami (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

List of sex positions → Sex position — Unnecessary division; Sex position is currently a stubbier duplicate of this one (with the exception of the History section). Cybercobra (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Docking

Really? Do people do this? I don't see how you could get sexual pleasure from it.--72.24.207.77 (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

if "admin" on "cockdockers".org says so, it must be true. I mean, who's going to admit they actually clicked the link to verify the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.252.23 (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering how sensitive the penis is -- the way it responds to friction when aroused -- I presume so, that men get pleasure from this. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Another move, perhaps -- to Sex acts and positions? Or Sex acts and sex positions?

I know this article was just moved a few months ago, but it is clear that this article is just as much about the acts as it is about the positions. I believe one of the two titles suggested in my heading above would be more accurate and benefit readers more. For example, Sex acts redirects to Human sexual activity...when it would be better redirected here (in my opinion). Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I redirected Sex act and Sex acts to Sex positions for now. Flyer22 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Phoebepuppy, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}


Phoebepuppy (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC) SPELLING CHECK

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please explain specifically what needs to be changed. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fdemers, 4 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} PLEASE CHANGE insertion of the male's penis into a partner's anus TO insertion of the penis into a partner's anus

REASON: few females have a penis

SOURCE: any book on human anatomy should do

Fdemers (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Your request is also consistent with the other descriptions (vaginal and oral) before that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature

While I agree that many of the names for positions that are presented are descriptive, we should not try to stray too far into current slang usage. I can think of many now-defunct names for certain positions, but odd ones still appear on this page. For instance, with MFM double penetration: "this is sometimes called the sandwich or BigMac". BigMac? Really? At least sandwich is more descriptive. And the use of the term "Rusty trombone" for a sex act? I know what it is and I know it has an article, but I feel that this term's usage will go out of style in the very near future. 69.196.161.124 (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Fisting

why are all the depictions hand drwan, then when you get down to fisting there is a real photo, i think that the picture has been used for shock purposes. either use all hand drawn for all depictions of positions or use real photos. 212.183.140.49 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

agreed. that particular image should be removed or replaced with a hand-drawn version, it does not feel like it belongs on this article 123.108.110.236 (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kylewestern, 1 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} External link edit to update URL for "The Sex-Position Playbook" at menshealth.com

Please change URL from http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?channel=sex.relationships&conitem=c1a1db9ba885f010VgnVCM10000013281eac____ to http://www.menshealth.com/sex-position-playbook/

Deadlink: http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?channel=sex.relationships&conitem=c1a1db9ba885f010VgnVCM10000013281eac____ Live: http://www.menshealth.com/sex-position-playbook/ Kylewestern (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Done --RL0919 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Wiki-cunnilingus.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Wiki-cunnilingus.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request - Suggested link for external References Tomkz (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey,

I think this link should be included in the external references list... http://www.sexinfo101.com/sexualpositions.shtml

Cheers,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkz (talk • contribs) 04:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No thanks, per WP:EL. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you wouldn't want this resource there? Have you taken a look at the sites that are?

  • The-Clitoris.com – a short listing of positions with most of the page being ads.
  • Sensualinteractive.com – a page of thumbnails that take you to a page with XXX advertisements.
  • menshealth.com - a good link.
  • Lesbian Sex Positions - a pretty sad collection of barbie pictures.

The link I am suggesting should be in this list as much as men's health, and more so then the other three that are there. Tomkz (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Tomkz (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You've already been answered. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

It currently says in the article: "Oral sex itself can never result in pregnancy." That is not entirely correct. It would be correct to say "Oral sex by itself can not normally result in pregnancy", but the never is overstating the case and suggests false certainty. There exists a case report of a pregnancy after oral sex and a subsequent stabbing, where the stab wound allowed the male sperm to reach the fallopian tube/uterus: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/811507-oral-sex-stabbing-pregnancy-story-could-be-true http://img2.tapuz.co.il/CommunaFiles/21227065.pdf 31.16.20.174 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The first article says it could be true, not it is true. Also, she didn't get pregnant by just oral sex, she also got stabbed to supposedly conceive a baby. Just oral sex can't get your pregnant. CTJF83 22:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions on SP graphics

I do not know if this has been suggested before about the pictures for Sex Positions and the like. How about using more uniform nondescript computer graphics of bodies using a neutral color (i.e. Silver or grey) with smoothing of facial features and etc to make things look as plain as possible but yet keep the general idea intact. Just a thought. Septagram (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Part of the reason for this is WP:NOTHOW. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be manuals, sexual or otherwise, and using only sex-manual-looking images would make this look a lot less like an encyclopedia article.-- TyrS  chatties  03:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Raunchy

Please can we do without the pictures of sex positions??? I caught my 14 year old son on my computer looking at this article. And simply put, I do not want to subject him to filth. I am not the only parent out there that has to remain vigilant of what our kids see and do online. I know that Wikipedia is not censored and that the pictures can be hidden, but God forbid, any person or pervert of any age, including a minor can come to this article and see the graphic pictures. I am not even sure if this article is encyclopedic. If it were, then Encarta or Encyclopedia Brittanica would have a similar article on sex positions, which they do not. Yoganate79 (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, we can't and wont, WP:NOTCENSORED. It's your job to watch what your child does, not ours. And 14?! I learned about sex-ed in like 7th grade. CTJF83 02:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe that there is a way to hide the pictures so that readers can be given the option of clicking on them, but we have editors who would consider that to be censorship. I don't mind either way. I can of course understand Yoganate's concern, though. If I had children, I'd be the same way. I mean, while sex ed partly teaches people about the body's anatomy and how it relates to sexual intercourse, it does not teach people most of what is found in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
14 is old enough to learn about sex. If that's not happening then it's not surprising people come here to fill in the blanks. 86.169.180.177 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
By the age of 14 most boys have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of pornographic images. This may come as a surprise to some parents. Wikipedia is one of the few places on the internet where seemingly explicit images are used in a constructive, educational context. Young people will inevitably learn about sex one way or another. Learning about it from an encyclopedia is probably the best way a person could learn about it. Removing the images because some people find it offensive would create a very dangerous precedent for censorship. Many people may be offended by the information presented on various topics on Wikipedia, including politics and religion. The mission of Wikipedia is to provide the sum of human knowledge to all people for free. There is no discrimination when it comes to content. All knowledge is valuable. We should be thankful that knowledge today is not governed by the social norms of Victorian England. Withholding information (of any kind) from young people can be very harmful in the long run. Children have an innate desire to know everything. What could possibly be the benefit of delaying a child's intellectual growth and exposure to reality? The world is not censored and neither is Wikipedia. It is unfortunate and painfully ironic that anyone would think sex is the most offensive thing to be discovered in our brutal, violent, and merciless world...a world filled with disease, pain, poverty, injustice, and cruelty. And, yet, there are grown men and women in that same world who worry that their child might learn about love? BDS2006 (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
So a 14-year-old should be learning about every sex position there is? Learning about basic sexual activity is one thing. Learning about sex positions is another. The latter most definitely implies that the 14-year-old will be trying some or many of these sex positions soon. Kids (of an appropriate age to be told about it) should know about sex because it lets them know that sex is typically not a bad thing and it helps them be prepared for any consequences that may happen as a result of it. But saying that kids should know about sex positions? I can't see that as anything but encouraging kids to engage in sex. You could argue that they can learn about sex positions without trying it until they are late teenagers/adults, just like they can learn about basic sexual activity without trying it until they are late teenagers/adults. But, again, there really isn't any reason for children or early teens to learn about sex positions unless they are going to be trying them as children or early teens. Learning about basic sexual activity is for the reasons I mentioned. Learning about sex positions is for sexual pleasure. 216.201.161.162 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It is wrong, and also they show lesbinism and black and white sex. This is perverted material that 14 year old should not be able to see, and sinful material.219.101.196.2 (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Tatr

LOL. That's hysterical, Tatr. Hmmmm...if I were a curious 14 year old boy and wanted to know about "Sex Positions" and Googled it, I wonder what pictures I would find that could possibly be more titillating than Wikipedia?? Let's find out shall we!JVB (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

Why does the article say "sex positions?" The word "sex" is NOT an adjective. The proper phrase is "sexual positions." If there is no dissent on this, I will change it around 1 March 2012.

Sexual positions sounds like we're referring to someone's sexuality. That's my two cents at least. Delierajaytoday (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It also would hint to any sexually provocative position, which is not what is desired.

File:Trio-FFF.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Trio-FFF.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Trio-FFF.svg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Threesome in colour.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Threesome in colour.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Threesome in colour.svg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 April 2012

In '"Group sex" - "With many participants" sub-section, change circle jerk to circle jerk (sexual practice).

173.81.153.14 (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well there's a term I didn't think I'd be typing today. Oh well.  Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A little representative diversity?

Wikipedia—Where Almost Everyone Demonstrating Something about the Human Body or Activity Is White, Circumcised, and Young.™ — President Lethe (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed -- TyrS  chatties  09:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed! I've flagged the article for neutrality and given a nonexhaustive list of changes that need to be made. Please check out the talk! Your contribution would be greatly appreciated. :] Eekiv 20:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

We do need better images...

Reading through the article, I couldn't help noticing that the design of the computer-drawn images makes this article look far less educational or neutral than they were (I assume) intended to be. Specifically, in all of the hetero examples, the guy has his face hidden while the woman is angled to display aroused facial expressions; in the lesbian examples, they show the receiving partner's face, and neither man's face is visible in the gay examples. Everyone being shaved (except a lesbian & a guy) and -- as others have noted -- having a specific race/age didn't help matters.

I did thoroughly look at all of the other Wikipedia images I could think of that would show the naked human body, and none of them look remotely like these; they look like something we'd find in a textbook, complete with notes wherever body hair has been trimmed or removed. This article's images look more like they were stills from pornography that were run through a graphic program filter to make them cartoonish.

I'm not anti-porn/pro-censorship at all -- if anything I'd like to see more illustrations for the described positions as I couldn't imagine how they worked. My concern is just that the images currently in use don't look like they belong in a remotely respectable reference. I'd offer replacements if I had any drawing skills or knew where to look for images that offer the necessary rights/permissions. Xyzzy☥Avatar (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Might someone make some new images? Weaxzezz (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed
Specifically about the face angles/expressions, the porn-still-look that is characteristic of Seedfeeder's illustrations, and the lack of racial/age diversity.
Also curious is the fact that out of four illustrated acts of oral sex, every single 'giver' is female. I don't want to upset anyone, but it honestly does come across as a striking (visual) expression of heterosexual male systemic bias. That is a definite problem for the quality of the article in terms of balance.
The preponderance of the use of Seedfeeder's illustrations is helping to give this article the flavor of a how-to, which is (per WP:NOTHOW) inconsistent with basic WP quality standards for any article on any subject. An encyclopedic tone needs to be used throughout, and this applies to images as much as it does to words.
-- TyrS  chatties  22:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Seedfeeder has been a godsend as far as sexual images on Wikipedia go. His images are generally liked because they are so educational -- thorough in detail -- and are a good alternative to having images of real people having sex, which is always a hot topic here at Wikipedia due to such images immediately being viewed as pornographic. View the following discussion, for example: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 108#Fox news Artistic images are fine, but they are not the most detailed. I don't consider having excessive use of Seedfeeder's images in the article to be WP:UNDUE. That is not what WP:UNDUE means. So your WP:UNDUE tag at the top of the article is inaccurate. 202.113.64.219 (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Seedfeeders images are in a lot of ways very encyclopaedic - but, it is very non encyclopaedic to only feature those images. It is best to show diversity in in which images are a part of the article, even though all images need to be of high standard. Weaxzezz (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Gotta say, I don't find "Seedfeeder"s images encyclopedic at all. They are instructional in style and the vast majority of them would be much more at home at WikiHow instead.
Obviously many contributors to this page (and the other poor-quality sex-related pages) don't accept (or understand, or possibly just don't care) that Wikipedia policy states that articles are not supposed to be instructional in style. And of course people do tend to lose objectivity when it comes to sexual subjects. Despite that, Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual. Commons contains many art history images that can illustrate positions for this article in a truly encyclopedic way, without all the POV issues that go along with using so many images created by one user that (visually) express his totally subjective personal prefernces. --TyrS 01:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
202.113.64.219. while you are entitled to your opinions and feelings about Seedfeeder's images, that doesn't make my use of WP:UNDUE inaccurate. In any other WP article it would be obvious how unbalanced (and inconsistent with WP:HOWTO) the inclusion of such an excess of one person's illustrations is. WP articles are not meant to be manuals of any kind. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which means that editors need to attempt to maintain an encyclopedic tone, in images as well as words, regardless of the nature of the subject matter. And the historical images are not only extremely educational but provide historical context. An article in which 90% of the images have been drawn by one WP contributor is completely lop-sided.-- TyrS  chatties  04:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, regarding your concern with detail in these images, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your opinion again: the art/historical images most certainly do illustrate the positions in question with sufficient detail for an encyclopedia article.-- TyrS  chatties  08:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
A bold person might make actual live person images. CTJF83 23:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
That person would have to be some kind of grand master of visual semiotics to avoid the zillions of POV and NOTHOW issues that are pretty much unavoidable with photographs.--TyrS 01:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Considering how Xyzzyavatar objects to the current images partly because they "look more like they were stills from pornography that were run through a graphic program filter to make them cartoonish," I doubt that Xyzzyavatar feels that images of real people having sex would be better. If anything, that would give this article even more of a porn feel and there's no teling how many objections per day this talk page would receive. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a reason to add unneceassry images that would distract away from the article more than they would add to it. I'm usually not anti-porn either, but this is an encyclopedia and real-life images of sex acts would make this article feel unprofessional/unencyclopedic. The images in the Human penis article, for example, are fine. But displaying real-life sex acts is porn, and there's no way around that. The same can be said of these animated drawings, but the porn feel is significantly reduced by having them as opposed to any real-life images. Even with the flaws Xyzzyavatar mentioned, this is no reason to discard these images and replace them with real-life images. And while more diversity is good (different ethnic backgrounds, not everyone's genitals being shaved or trimmed), I don't see it as a huge problem that the penetrator's, or simply "the top's," face typically isn't shown. Not only can the giver's face not be shown for some of these positions, the giver enjoying the experience is implied just by the fact that sex is occurring and that the receiver is enjoying the experience. 216.201.161.162 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree (Though I have a quibble about the last sentence - what may be inferred by different viewers varies.) Images from art history, of which examples abound on Commons (some just need a bit of cropping to focus on the relevant subject matter) do the job far better than Seedfeeder's instruction-manual-style drawings, which of course vividly express a very specific personal POV (white, male, heterosexual, shaved vaginas, males not shown performing oral sex, etc). The place for editors wanting to put together what is in fact an instruction page rather than an encyclopedia-quality article is WikiHow. -- TyrS  chatties  07:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey all! I've flagged this article for NPOV until issues such as these can be addressed. Please see the talk here. Your contribution to the list of needed changes would be awesome--what may be obvious to you might not be so to other editors. Eekiv 20:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Addressing the imbalance/lack of diversity & how-to/manual-look problems

I have just added this image to illustrate cunnilingus. It is currently the only 1 out of 5 oral sex images in the article where the 'giver' is male. Because of layout, as well as balance/POV and WP:NOTHOW-related issues (see discussion above), Seedfeeder's drawing of the woman performing cunnilingus is no longer needed here. I suggest therefore that it be removed. I will remove it myself in a couple of days if there is no further discussion about it here.-- TyrS  chatties  00:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the image of the woman performing cunnilingus. It's one of the images adding balance to the article. Removing it leaves only heterosexual oral sex in the article, other than the female-on-female analingus image. Just because it's a woman performing oral sex, it doesn't mean that it adds inbalance to the article. It's a woman performing oral sex on another woman, one of the few homosexual sex images we have. Even resorting to any such images of real people available at Commons shows mostly heterosexual oral sex.
I take your point about it being the only homosexual oral illustration currently in the article.-- TyrS  chatties  03:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, regarding your edit about the missionary position,[2] it actually is the most common sex position. Various scholarly sources state that. And, really, we see it in the media more than any other sex position, so that's common sense. 202.113.64.219 (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The issue, 202.113.64.219, is lack a of cited references (and you are more than welcome to cite the "various scholarly sources" you mention) for such a huge claim ("the most commonly used sex position" implies that it's talking about the entire world - I doubt the data exists to definitively 'prove' this). More references would remove the need for "according to one book".-- TyrS  chatties  04:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised, that nobody seems to have adressed it yet, but none of the pictures show any protection (condoms…). Of course this is understandable with the historic images. But with Seedfeeder's drawings? Daadler (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Monty Python trivia

4th item in cunnilingus list had: "Humorously popularised in the Monty Python song "Sit On My Face" (1980)". This type of isolated cultural trivia obviously doesn't belong in the main body, if it belongs at all. Perhaps in a separate "Sex positions in popular culture" section.-- TyrS  chatties  23:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Filthy Pictures

Please! I Once AGAIN I caught my 14 year old son viewing this article with sexually explicit pictures. I know that Wikipedia is not censored but there must be some compromise involved. Please! This is an academic and intellectual web site that can be assessed by children of any age. What is even worse, I have checked Encyclopedia Brittanica's web site and there is no article dedicated to "sexual positions". I understand that a lot of you who edit this article are perverts, but that doesn't give you the right or an excuse to expose innocent childen who have no control over the content that they view.Yoganate79 (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

YOU are the one exposing your child to what YOU believe is "filthy" by your own lack of censorship. Get some software and control your own child. There is nothing wrong with these articles or the pictures within. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.255.129 (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Give me a break. A 14 year old should be trying to figure this stuff out. What's more is that there is a whole lot of stuff a lot worse than encyclopedic descriptions of sex on the Internet. Your kid is ONE CLICK away from HD color full-motion streaming live video of every possible sex act in the imagination of mankind since the dawn of time and your worried about drawings of sex positions?! Watch your own kid. Stop trying to censor the English-speaking world with your ideas of what's right and wrong because your son wants to see drawings of naked people.

No... a 14 year old should not be trying to "figure this stuff out." A 14 year old should be trying to concentrate on his school work, participating in sports, and spending time with his friends and family, not looking at a bunch of smutty pictures and text plastered all over Wikipedia. I have a feeling though that you would even tolerate a kid younger than a 14 year old trying to "figure out this stuff" too. So where do we draw the line? Any child of any age can access this article. That is the problem!Yoganate79 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
No....you draw the line on all censorship. So Wiki caves in and removes the drawings on Anal Sex and Bukkake because its just too much for you. Then what? I have a feeling though that you would even not tolerate drawings of the Doggie Position or maybe even Missionary Position. The line is that no one person or group decides what is right or acceptable for all others and parents begin parenting and stop forcing their beliefs on others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.232.235 (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here's the reason Wikipedia does not, can not, and will not censor to meet individual and personal sensibilities, morality or religious world-views. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms. However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.

Give me a break, do your damn job as a parent and monitor your child or put blocking software on. It's not our job to make sure your child doesn't look at what you deem inappropriate. Also, at 14, they are probably learning sex ed in school anyway. You're the worst type of parent, blaming everyone else for what's your job. CTJF83 23:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed: Addition of animated "reverse-cowgirl" demonstration

thumb|Reverse cowgirl

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverse-cowgirl-animation.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.161.45 (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


I'm afraid I've nominated this image for deletion. The reasons should not be discussed here, but on the deletion page. Please contribute there. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason for deletion, as I've explained there. Sex-position-demonstration (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed: Addition of animated "reverse-cowgirl (prone)" demonstration

The reporting IP User has been blocked as a troll per WP:ANI#Request additional review of disruptive editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The image is here: File:Reverse-cowgirl-prone-animation.gif, and in this one no subjects are identifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sex-position-demonstration (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that one is up for deletion as a copyright violation now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Why? (compare with: the uploader's Talk page at Wikimedia Commons) 150.135.161.192 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence there was any copyright violation, so why did the administrators (e.g., "Martin H."):

  1. censor it (Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reverse-cowgirl-prone-animation.gif);
  2. block the uploader (Commons:User talk:Sex-position-demonstration);
  3. violate the official blocking-policy (Commons:User talk:Sex-position-demonstration); and
  4. censor legitimate grievances about their own policy-violations? (Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems)?

It just looks like they're on some kind of religious crusade, enacted through cronyism and illegitimate censorship. -- 150.135.161.194 (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you are deluded or just trolling, but I suggest that you quit while you're ahead (which is to say, only blocked on Commons). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
There's no evidence the poster was either deluded or trolling, so why did you make that accusation?
There is little point complaining about your Commons woes here. --JN466 03:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Improper censorsip harms the readers and the Wikimedia Foundation more than it harms the person who was censored. 206.207.225.51 (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
never mind the copyright status, the clip is too poor quality to use in any case. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
And it has been deleted, so it's a moot point. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not moot, because the deletion is appealable under the pertinent policy, and there's no evidence that the deletion was made for any reason allowed under the policy. 150.135.161.45 (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
According to the deletion discussion, it was a copyvio of a commercial porn clip. But if you want to appeal it, go ahead and knock yourself out. Kaldari (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 September 2012

I see in many places "Most of these positions can be used for either vaginal or anal penetration.", this doesn't need to be repeated everywhere because the section "Anal sex positions" already specifies that "Most anal sex positions are adaptations of vaginal penetrative positions". Also because, by repeating it so often, it degrades the litterary style of this article, and it emphatises on a practice that most women, like myself, find unpleasant, and most women are tired of meeting men who ask it as if it was a usual practise to expect. Then after the sentence "Anal sex positions involve anal penetration." I would like to add "Note that anal penetration can also be performed by a woman equipped with a sex toy such as strap-on dildo."

Lilla saga (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be repetitive, but I don't believe it is done to emphasize a practice that "most women find unpleasant" but rather to be gender and orientation neutral because gay and bisexual men often find it quite pleasant as well as the women who enjoy it. JVB — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannVanbeek (talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Not done:Mainly per Johann, but also because it is easier to have it in more that one place to "make it clear". Mdann52 (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request regarding lateral coital

Please edit "man" and "woman" to "penetrating partner" and "receiving partner" Reasons: To bring it in line with the rest of the article, and because not every man has a penis (just cis men), and ditto women and vaginas - gender references are obsolete. Further, it could easily also be used by a women with a dildo. Oneboikyle (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Oneboikyle. You are speaking of the Receiving partner on top section. I would do what you suggest, but the lateral coital position describes heterosexual sexual activity; refer to the Wikipedia article on it and/or these sources about it on Google Books. As is clear in its Wikipedia article, it's a sex position that is credited to Masters and Johnson. Additionally, coital almost always means "penile-vaginal sex"; see this dictionary source and this one, for examples. That's also why the coital alignment technique and coitus interruptus are about heterosexual sexual activity. That's not to state that the lateral coital position or the coital alignment technique can't also be used by same-sex pairings. Obviously, they can (though, since the coital alignment technique is about sexually stimulating the clitoris, it's not a male-male matter...except for in the case of two transmen). Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Flyer22, for having a look. I had a look at the articles linked in the original article, and definitely see your point but would still be inclined to argue that heterosexual sex, between a transman and a transwoman, could still be penile-vaginal sex yet not fall in line with the man and woman labels mentioned in the article. Perhaps, however, I am just being sensitive; would using "male" or "male-bodied" and "female" or "female-bodied" instead of man and woman be a reasonable substitution, if you are opposed to removing gender references? Oneboikyle (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure about the opening position here, that "gender references are obsolete". That is a claim that would make much of Wikipedia's coverage of sex obsolete too. Extraordinary claims need extraordinarily good references. I don't think that the mainstream scientific and medical world has quite moved to that position yet, and I would be surprised to see WP:MEDRS sources that confirm it as mainstream. Wikipedia is a general-readership encyclopedia and many of our editorial decisions are a case of balancing WP:WEIGHT of coverage to reflect the real world, as reflected in the best sources. It does not imply any value judgement if our general coverage reflects the weight given to every kind of sexual activity by mainstream and specialist sources. This article makes a good effort at covering as many possibilities as possible where language and the sources allow it, but, specifically:
  1. I would be unhappy to see our language made impenetrable for the general reader by the extensive use of terms and phraseology that are uncommon, or the blanket adoption of any kind of overly 'politically correct' terminology in contradiction to the cited sources.
  2. It is necessary under WP:V that when we cite a source we reflect the content of the source in our article text. In order to cover more obscure cases, first we need additional sources that also cover them, and then we need evidence to help with the editorial judgement as to whether including such cases may be giving WP:UNDUE weight in an overview article.
Having said all that, I think that there are too many cases of 'his or her' (6) and 'his/her' (11) in this article, where perhaps 'their' may be easier. On the other hand, I don't think that 'male-bodied' or 'female-bodied' are needed very often, except in articles specifically on transgender topics. --Nigelj (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Oneboikyle, Nigelj is correct about WP:WEIGHT; it's a Wikipedia policy (not just a guideline) that we should follow. I contacted Nigelj to weigh in on this matter because it is sometimes better to have an additional editor explain that policy or an additional editor might explain it better than the initial editor. I had no idea that you are a transman when I made the transmen statement above (I see that you made an edit to the Trans man article noting that you are, and pointed to your personal YouTube channel in your sandbox about that topic, after my initial comment above), but it makes even more sense why you object to the wording for the lateral coital position, and I hope that my having mentioned transmen above shows that I do consider transgender matters while editing topics that are not solely about transgender aspects. In addition to Nigelj changing instances of "his or her", I went ahead and changed the wording for the lateral coital position by using the terms male and female, like you suggested. That is an acceptable compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey all! I've flagged this article for Neutral Point of View until these issues can be resolved. Please see the talk section I created and add to the list that which makes it non-neutral and how we can fi these issues. I agree that the focus is cis-centric and absolutely needs to change. I also agree that all diversity should be embraced, including hetero relations, but that that should hold equal and not disproportionate weight against all other identities and expressions. Eekiv 20:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Eekiv, see the WP:Due weight policy linked above. We are not supposed to "give equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing with regard to coverage among sources. Wikipedia is not about righting the great wrongs of society; I elaborated on this in the section you created below. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View flag explanation

Hello all!

I've flagged this article until its NPOV issues can be resolved. Here is a list of problems (nonexhaustive) to look out for and correct. What may be obvious to you may not be so to other editors. Please add to this list to help outline what should be changed, or use it for your own guidance in doing just that!

  • The explanations of sexual positions are most often heterocentric when they do not need to be. The majority refer to a penis/him/he as the penetrator and vagina/her/she as the receiving partner.
    • If the section is referring to a non-inclusive historical explanation of a sex position, it should be made clear that the reference is historical.
  • The animated images are problematic and should either be changed out completely or mostly wiped out and replaced with inclusive images. The animated images are almost exclusively of young, skinny, white, cis/gendernorm people portraying generic and heterocentric sexual identities and expressions. These images need to be more inclusive of body type, gender diversity, age, race, queerness, kink, etc.


Sexuality is much more diverse and interesting than this article currently portrays. :] Eekiv 20:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Eekiv, as is the case with other Wikipedia articles, this article is the product of sources on the topic and available free images (such as on WP:Commons). The significant majority of sources speak of sex positions with regard to heterosexuality or the penis penetrating an orifice. As for what you stated about sex toys before changing your comment, it's not too common that sex toys are mentioned as being an aspect of a sex position, and that includes discussions among scholars. We live in a society that puts most of its sexual attention on heterosexuality. It's also a society that is significantly more focused on sexual activity involving the use of a penis than any other type of sexual activity. None of this is surprising if indeed the vast majority of the world is heterosexual. Lesbian sex, for example, is the least focused on/studied topic with regard to couple combinations; I should know because in addition to being familiar with many scholarly texts concerning sexuality, including lesbianism, I extensively worked on the Lesbian sexual practices article and requested an image of a lesbian sexual position for the Tribadism article; there was no image of the missionary sex position of tribadism before I requested one. And as you know, there are complaints similar to yours in the #A little representative diversity? and #We do need better images... sections above. However, there is not much that Wikipedia can do about these "unequal" matters without creating false balance. WP:Due weight makes clear (when scrolling down to the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections), there should not be an attempt to give "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing with regard to coverage among sources; what you did with this and this wording in the lead is an attempt at false balance, an attempt that also strays from the source. And with regard this edit you made and the hidden note you created, yes, indeed the coital alignment technique is always described as a heterosexual activity...only; it is specifically about stimulating the clitoris, which is already explained in the section immediately above this one, a section you commented in, and never have I read a WP:Reliable source describe it as an anal sex position. Putting "anal sex" before "vaginal sex," like you did here, for example, is not an improvement; the vast majority of heterosexual people, and most gay and lesbian people, do not engage in anal sex; this Go Ask Alice! source and this Cengage Learning source are two of many sources that address that. So to sum up, we follow the mainstream; we do not try to create the mainstream. I'm all for making the article more neutral, but not to the point where we are attempting to give "equal validity." I will always give more weight to what the significant majority of sources state, so do not be surprised if I reword or revert any of your changes on this matter. Besides Nigelj, who watches this article and helped me explain WP:Due weight in the section immediately above this one, someone who can help on this matter, including making the article more neutral, if it can be validly made more neutral, is NeilN. Zad68 and Johnuniq might also be able to help. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll adapt one of your phrases to make another point. I'm all for making the article more neutral, but not to the point where we are sacrificing clarity to adapt to a minority viewpoint. Also, remember this is a general article about sex positions so any esoteric kinks (non-normative sexual behavior) may not be covered or only covered briefly. I'll be watching the article and this talk page and will offer assistance when I can. --NeilN talk to me 22:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22--thanks for your explanation, and thank you NeilN for your assistance!
I have a difficult time agreeing with Flyer22's explanation regarding due weight, particularly the idea that "we follow the mainstream". Creating an in-depth encyclopedia and maintaining a neutral point of view requires research on as many sides of an issue as are referenceable under Wikipedia's guidelines, and what I see as the ultimate problem with this article is that it lacks information pulled from research into minority sexual practices. This is a major problem given the weight of the article itself and the lack of diversity in our editorship. I don't claim to have a broad-sweeping solution other than perhaps to invite scholars to edit through the WMF Education Program.
My intention with mixing up "anal" and "vaginal" was to mix up the wording and make it more accessible to the people reading the article who would access anal sex before vaginal sex. I do see what you mean regarding undue weight, but I think this is a deeper question--a question of the accessibility of articles to our readership. Are we an encyclopedia geared primarily toward those who fit the norms outlined in this article? That said, I'm open to compromising and leaving Flyer22's revisions until a more expansive research body is referred to to back this article. That said, rather than reverting my edits completely, I ask that you, Flyer22, please do new edits, as the edit you reverted removes other changes I have made.
On a separate but relevant note for Flyer22: if you have other constructive points to make regarding diversity, insclusivity and access in Wikipedia, please do. I don't want to get into the realm of a conflict. Your initial comment when you reverted my edit ("Why in the world are you constantly putting 'anal' before 'vaginal'?") was confrontational and is the type of language that closes Wikipedia up to new editors and people who are conflict-averse. Your talk page note was full of constructive details, which are the kinds of communications we should be having in this community.
Eekiv 22:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that reports how things are—this is not an advocacy website. For example, while anal intercourse is widely practised, it is still very much a "by the way" as far as the topic of this article is concerned, and repeatedly flagging mentions of sex with "and anal" is not suitable. That's because it is not Wikipedia's role to ensure that every practioner gets "equal time" for their favorite position (and it appears that Sex position#Group sex could do with some scholarly references to support the impression that the described positions are significant outside the porn industry). There is no POV problem in having an article describe sex positions as they most commonly occur. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Eekiv, to elaborate on what I have stated on this matter is going to be somewhat repetitive, so bear with me. We have the WP:Verifiability and WP:Due weight policies that we are supposed to follow on this matter; those policies are clear where I am coming from on this. As much as I am for diversity, as is obvious by my positive involvement in LGBT topics on Wikipedia, I am just as much for following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You speak of the minority, and WP:Due weight is specifically about the majority vs. the minority; we are supposed to give more weight to the majority. Read the "Balancing aspects" and "Giving equal validity" parts of WP:Weight if you have not already. Or the essay WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which states, "Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. ... On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. 'Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed.'"
So, yes, Wikipedia follows the mainstream...with due weight given to the non-mainstream. The only time that the majority should not get more weight is when it is a small majority. As for inviting scholars from the WP:Education program (including Wikimedia Foundation) to edit this article, scholars cannot readily change what the majority of sources report either. They also usually send their students to do the work, and, in my experience, their students are significantly more prone to make messes than improvements. As for what I stated to you in this edit summary, I admit that it's a snippy response, and I apologize. It's a result of my frustration with people thinking that being WP:Neutral means "giving equal validity"; see this discussion at the Sexualization article where I pretty much state the same thing. To my surprise, a male editor there made a wise comment that sexualization is mostly studied with regard to women and that therefore the Sexualization article is mostly going to be about women (and girls). And of course, I've explained to you why the Sex position article is mostly about heterosexual sex and penile penetration. As for reverting you, I've only reverted you three times so far: The edit involving the aforementioned snippy comment, and here and here; the latter two are partial reverts. As long as you are not creating false balance and adding things not supported by the source(s), I am less likely to revert you. There are certainly things that can improve this article's neutrality, such as neutral language in places where it makes sense, more diverse images when or if they become available for this topic, and more discussion about same-sex sexual practices (preferably attributed to WP:Reliable sources; there is still a lot in this article that should be reliably sourced). Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Eekiv, just to echo what the others have pointed out: Wikipedia articles will, by design, be behind the curve in adapting to new thought currently in the process of gaining popularity and acceptance. On Wikipedia "NPOV" means "reflects the emphasis found in reliable sourcing". If it is currently the case that most reliable sourcing covers boring hetero penile-vaginal positions, that's what this article should feature most prominently. If in 5 or 10 years or whatever, the body of reliable sourcing covering this topic has changed fundamentally in its emphasis, this article will change at that time. Zad68 04:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
It's because of what Zad68 stated in this discussion that he removed the POV (non-neutral) tag. And besides what he stated, I think that it's clear that all of the sex positions, though not all of the sex acts, can be performed by same-sex couples. The ones exclusive to same-sex couples, which are also more so acts than positions, are most of the ones mentioned in the Genital-genital rubbing section (I mentioned before that this article would be better titled "Sex positions and sex acts," or something like that). And the aforementioned "#We do need better images..." discussion resulted in the addition of images of same-sex couples, though images of same-sex couples (two, I think) were already in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Eekiv in that sometimes changing the order of words like "anal", "oral" & "vaginal" (when they appear together) would create a more balanced article. I disagree with the suggestion that we should use only one wording order, and that that order is dictated by some mainstream consensus. Various sources will order them in various ways, and occasionally re-ordering our wording would hardly be a threat to any status quo (whether real or imaginary). (Using the same logic, we could argue that the popular consensus is that gay men do have lots of anal sex, therefore we should reflect that, or that the existence in the world of approximately 150% more anuses than vaginas would be an argument for insisting on starting every such list with the word "anal".) Anyhow, an impression of bias is made in this article by the insistence on one particular word before the other no matter what, at all times, when of course there is no single worldwide consensus on what "people do sexually".

Regarding the statement, in the 21:52, 4 November 2013 post, that "...most gay and lesbian people do not engage in anal sex" . Like most (if not all) sweeping generalizations, this is highly debatable. Study results will, naturally, vary over time and in different geographical locations. For example, ACON (a leading New South Wales health promotion organisation specialising in HIV and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex health) states that "Anal sex is very common among gay men. Almost all gay men have tried anal sex at least once,with about 80% saying they’ve had it in the previous six months." Direct link here: [3] So I vote for the occasional reordering of the words in question on grounds of NPOV.--TyrS 06:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your view of what WP:Neutral means is not consistent with the way that Wikipedia defines WP:Neutral, as is clear by my and others' posts in this section above. If starting from this debate involving you and me back in 2010, for years you have had the view that particular, consistent wording (such as putting "male" before "female") introduces systemic bias. And you apparently still have that view now.
I go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and what WP:Reliable sources state, when it comes to my editing of this site. I leave the WP:Activism at the door, like we are supposed to do. Stating "...most gay and lesbian people do not engage in anal sex" is not a sweeping assertion in the least; it is a statement that is supported by various WP:Reliable sources, including the ones I provided above that report that oral sex and mutual masturbation are more common among gay men than anal sex is, and this one that states, "[t]he equation of 'homosexual' with 'anal' sex among men is common among lay and health professionals alike" and that "[y]et an Internet survey of 18,000 MSM across Europe (EMIS, 2011) showed that oral sex was most commonly practised, followed by mutual masturbation, with anal intercourse in third place." Just about every up-to-date reliable source I have come across that discusses sexual activities among gay men, or men who have sex with men in general, places anal sex last, with or without added emphasis that it is a myth that anal sex is the primary or prevalent sexual activity among male same-sex couples. Is anal sex commonly practiced among gay men? Yes. Is it practiced by all or most of them? No, especially with regard to all of them engaging in the activity. And anal sex among female same-sex couples is barely reported at all, but the reliable sources consistently state that anal sex is the least practiced sexual activity when compared to vaginal sex, oral sex, mutual masturbation and certain other sexual activities. Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:MYWAY comments like the first sentence in the previous post are not only ludicrous and rude but totally unhelpful in terms of improving the article. It shouldn't be necessary to point out that your belief that your view of WP:Neutral is superior to mine or anyone else's is simply your opinion.
The points I have made above (at 06:01, 17 December 2013) remain valid and I continue to stand by them and await the input of other editors. --TyrS 18:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments like those are necessary when pointing out that you have had a flawed view with regard to how Wikipedia is supposed to work for years now, despite more than enough editors pointing out to you that, no, that is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Nothing ludicrous about my pointing out such contrast with regard to Wikipedia policies and guidelines or that certain editors need to try better to leave their WP:Activism at the door. "My way" is Wikipedia's way. But, yes, stand by your rationale, as always, and I'll stand by mine. Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

wp policy re image captions

The image captions here need improving. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Image_captions. Though the historical ones are presumably by Anonymous, the seven illustraions by "Seedfeeder" lack the minimum information (artist and title of work). It seems odd that the source, or any kind of attribution, is missing on these.--TyrS 04:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Sex position

I saw this in the lede, emphasis added:

Though sexual intercourse generally involves the penetration of the body of one person by another, or direct stimulation of the sex organ of one by another, a sex position may not necessarily involve penetration or direct stimulation, and may be non-penetrative.

I found it bizarre that the third sentence of the article could contain such an error. I mean... this is just wrong. If a sex position does not involve touching and direct stimulation, then how can it be a sex position? It is true that you can psychologically stimulate/arouse somebody with words/pictures/items etc., but that's not the actual intercourse.

I reworded the sentence (edit), but it was undone by User:Flyer22 (see: [4][5][6]). We discussed the issue on her talk page, see: User talk:Flyer22#Sex positions.

Any thoughts? - Manifestation (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I put notes about this discussion on Talk:Human sexuality,[7] WT:SEX,[8] and WP:3O.[9] Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The lede is supposed to summarize the body. Where in the body are sex positions which "may not necessarily involve penetration or direct stimulation, and may be non-penetrative" discussed? --NeilN talk to me 13:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The article lists various non-penetrative positions, especially oral sex. However, it does not list positions which do not involve direct stimulation, because such positions do not exist. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is my full reply to Manifestation on my talk page. My latest reply to him there was that the point of what I stated is this: People can get into a sex position for the purposes of non-penetrative sex, which is indeed covered in the article and is a point you seemed to dispute; your statement above even claimed that the article focuses exclusively on penetrative sex, which is clearly wrong. The "direct stimulation" bit is, I'm sure, not meant to imply "otherwise we mean sexual arousal"; "indirect stimulation" covers more than sexual arousal. I think that the person who added "indirect stimulation" was referring to indirect stimulation of the genitals, which, when referring to sexual activity, is usually classified as anything that does not involve manual stimulation or the penis getting pleasure by penetrating an orifice (meaning penile penetration for a man is direct stimulation for that man); "indirect stimulation" especially concerns indirect stimulation of the clitoris (look on Google Books or Google Scholar; it's there).For example, the coital alignment technique is often considered indirect stimulation of the clitoris, where manual or oral stimulation of the clitoris is usually considered direct stimulation (sources can vary on the matter regarding oral sex, and manual or oral stimulation may indirectly stimulate another area of the clitoris). Notice how this source talks about sexual penetration only indirectly stimulating the clitoris? I objected to your edits because what you removed is covered by the article. But as for sexual arousal specifically regarding a sex position, that is addressed in the Non-penetrative positions section; it mentions orgasm control.
And now to elaborate on what I stated at my talk page... For sources (whether sources that offer sexual information, sexology sources, or sex guide sources) that specifically mention that a sex position may involve direct or indirect stimulation:
  • This source (page 11) states: "In any position, the clitoris receives stimulation indirectly and some females find that direct stimulation of the clitoris is uncomfortable, too intense, or perhaps even painful."
  • This source (page 124) states: "In fact, few sexual positions do provide direct stimulation of the clitoris. Instead, indirect stimulation is usually involved."
  • This source page (289) states: "The biggest disadvantage of the missionary position, though, is that her clitoris is only indirectly stimulated (if at all)."
  • This source (page 15), though not a source I would use since some of its pleasure claims might not be scientifically sound, states: "The U-spot can get indirect stimulation from some sexual positions due to the pull on her pelvic floor."
  • This source (page 163), when speaking of getting into a position to stimulate the prostate, states: "A male and his lover can also get used to the idea of prostate stimulation, or bypass any issues they have with probing the anus, by indirectly stimulating the prostate via the perineum, which lies between his testicles and anus."
  • This source (page 21) states: "Repeat, stretching the leg out and folding it towards his body five times. You should feel him relax a little more each time. Do the same with the other leg. This exercise is very expansive and gives a great sensation of freedom and openness. Use this move to indirectly stimulate and improve blood supply to the genital area."
  • This source (page 91) states: "This area between the testicles and anus, directly below the prostate, responds well to gentle strokes and firm vibrations, all indirectly stimulating the prostate."
  • This source (page 26) states: "The glans penis contains a heavy concentration of nerve endings that play a major role in the sexual arousal of the male. In fact, the concentration is so heavy that many men would prefer very gentle or even indirect stimulation here, as is true of women with the clitoris."
So while indirect stimulation of males' genitals is not in the article, except for frot (which can be considered indirect stimulation when it doesn't involve hands) or other acts in the Non-penetrative positions section that may not involve use of hands to stimulate the genitals, indirect stimulation of the clitoris/vulva is present in the article, considering that the vast majority of penetrative sex positions indirectly stimulate the clitoris/vulva and some (including the woman on top position) focus on applying pressure to the clitoris; that stated, since the coital alignment technique applies very good pressure to the clitoris/vulva, it may therefore be labeled as direct stimulation in some sources (perhaps the same is the case for the woman on top position). If you want better sources than the ones I listed above, they are out there; just look around.
On a side note: Manifestation, make sure that you don't inappropriately WP:Canvass, like you did here (which I reverted). And as for you seeking WP:Third opinion, like you did here, WP:Third opinion is a WP:Dispute resolution process; like WP:Dispute resolution notes, it is to be sought after people have tried to work the dispute out. Posting to my talk page and having a very brief discussion with me, when the matter should have been brought to this talk page for other opinions before going to WP:Third opinion, is not sufficiently trying to work the matter out. WP:Third opinion, in its How to list a dispute section states: "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Manifestation: It is not useful to edit articles like this based on personal opinion. Instead, ask whether statements are supported by WP:RS and are WP:DUE. Also, Wikipedia would grind to a halt if every minor disagreement was reflected onto multiple pages—a discussion of at least a week is needed on an article talk page before alerting others, yet your OP above is the first comment on this page in over six months. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow... I need a cup of tea. *gets one* Anyway, long story short: this dispute seems to be about the phrase "indirect stimulation". When I read it, I interpret it as: 'stimulate without touching anything'. But as Flyer22 demonstrates, it could also mean: 'stimulate not by touching [name of the organ] directly, but by stimulating organs around it, which in turn stimulates [name of the organ]'. I think the current wording in the article can cause confusion, see my original post with the bold part. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
LOL, understandable about the cup of tea. That stated, like I also demonstrated above, "indirect stimulation" can also mean "stimulate not by touching [name of the organ] with hands (as in directly), but by touching [name of the organ] with another body part." After all, as noted above, in a lot of penetrative sex positions, the clitoral glans (which is what is often meant by "clitoris," unless a person is specifically talking about the clitoris as a whole, meaning the inclusion of its internal parts as well) is being indirectly stimulated by the man's pubic bone; that's why the coital alignment technique aims to maximize such contact and borders on direct stimulation (and may be defined as direct stimulation of the clitoris in some sources).
As for the current wording of "direct stimulation," it does help to be clearer about what is "indirect." Since the sexual arousal aspect is not spelled out as far as getting into a sex position for that purpose (before penetrative or non-penetrative sex takes place, or without it), it's fine to leave mention of that out when specifying what is meant by "indirect stimulation." The orgasm control aspect is more so about touching than non-touching anyway, considering that one has to get near the orgasm level in that scenario and getting near that level is usually done by touching rather than the sheer power of psychological stimulation. How about we use the following wording? This: "a sex position may not involve penetration or direct stimulation, and may instead be non-penetrative or involve indirect touching of the genitals." And for better clarity, we could add on to that the following: "as is sometimes the case in non-manual stimulation." I used "sometimes" because, as noted above, not all forms of non-manual stimulation is indirect stimulation. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Your comments are making me dizzy. You approach this discussion in such microscopic detail that I can't make heads or tails of it. Even if you're right about everything, the point is: the reader must understand it. Can't we just lay off the 'indirect touching' and 'indirect stimulation'? After reading your comments, I can somewhat understand what is meant with it, but I don't think everyone will. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think that I approached "this discussion in such microscopic detail," considering that "indirect stimulation" is often a significant aspect of sex positions, especially when it comes to sexually pleasing a woman. And what I've stated above on the subject is supported by WP:Reliable sources (whether some I listed above or others found elsewhere). But perhaps I do at times to let everything that I know about human sexuality cloud matters. Since the "direct stimulation vs. indirect stimulation" aspect is not discussed in the article, and neither are significantly discussed individually, I have removed the "direct" stimulation aspect from the lead (followup edit here); this removal is in line with WP:Lead, which notes that matters not discussed lower in the article generally should not be addressed in the lead. I also considered removing any mention of the matter from the lead a little after my "17:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)" post above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, in case you are not certain, you alerting Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality (WT:SEX) to this discussion was not a WP:Canvass violation (it's an acceptable use of WP:Canvass); that project is generally inactive, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that's better I guess. Thanks. - Manifestation (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Starfish position

The "Starfish position" is mentioned near the end of the article but cannot be found elsewhere in the article. I presume that it should be added to the "Penetrating partner on top with front entry" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolRon (talk • contribs) 05:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sex position. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Triple Penetration

I'm sorry to say that "Triple penetration usually involves the penetration of the anus, vagina, and mouth simultaneously." is absolutely wrong, at least in porn messed up world, while the truth is more disgusting. Every porn consumer that buys a film advertised with triple penetration would be extremely pissed off if there was no penetration of vagina and anus by three penises at the same time. What is described by the above quote is always called air tight. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Purely in the interests or research, googling Triple penetration movies, first link takes you to a porn site, and images there show a 50/50 mix of anus, vagina,mouth and anus,anus,mouth. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't see a 50/50 mix, rather 80/20. (with 80% I mean the two holes triple penetration which you didn't mention) Some people on amateur sites also mock their viewers by claiming a DP for a performer that never ever made a DP in their life while the performer e. g. only shows vagina and mouth (which is what almost every performer does regularly). That doesn't make the wrong definition right, on the contrary that person will rather get many angry comments for his trick. ;) --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC) P. S.: A person known for triple penetrations would be Adriana Chechik. She won't ever be able to sale the word "triple penetration" to her crazy fans with vagina, anus and mouth.
Actually, it would make sense for you to research on a professional porn site that will explain everything what happens exactly in a text under the trailers. There you will very, very, very rarely find the term triple penetration (whereas your definition of one - which is called air tight - is definitely not rarely depicted). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

citation for the shocker (2 in the pink, 1 in the stink)

http://www.subzin.com/quotes/M602181a99/Jimmy+Carr%3A+In+Concert/Maybe+try+the+shocker.

proposal: rename

This is not an article. It is multiple lists. If all of the bullet points are removed, then content is ~1K and much of that due to illustrations. So, I say call it List of sex positions. Any discussion or objection?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The rename is not needed. There is no valid way to separate discussion of the sex positions from the different types covered (listed) in the article. In other words, having a "Sex position" and "List of sex positions" article would be unnecessary WP:Content forking. So why shouldn't the article continue to be called "Sex position"? As seen in the history of List of sex positions, this article was titled "List of sex positions" until a move request to move it to "Sex positions." Eventually it, was moved to "Sex position" per WP:SINGULAR. "List of sex positions" redirects here. And if this article was titled "List of sex positions" again, "Sex position" would redirect here. Not all of our list articles use a "List of" title. And, really, what other way is there to cover different sex positions than to list them? Even if the bullet points were removed, we'd still have sections devoted to specific sex positions. I don't really consider this a list article. It uses bullet points, but it mainly also consists of prose. An editor can simply remove the bullet points. MOS:PROSE states, "Wikipedia differentiates between articles that consist primarily of lists (and are termed 'lists' or 'stand alone lists') and articles that consist primarily of prose (and are termed 'articles'). Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain lists."
For a similar discussion, see this discussion regarding the Unsimulated sex article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm describing Sex position here. Anyone who examines that article will readily note that, if the bullet-point lines — or, as some call them, LISTS — were to be removed, the only prose remaining is like 300 words, so inarguably NOT deserving to be called "a discussion" in any sense.
I've noticed that Wikipedia generally lets a lot of garbage remain in List pages that would be quickly contested in an article. If this is an article, then it should be held to article-level standards. If it is a List page, then it should be a List page, and continue being a repository for unsourced cruft, trivia, and ephemera, so that garbage is kept from actual articles. It is disingenuous at best (more likely dishonest) to maintain a page that is allowed the benefits of both List and Article.
FFI: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections.
There probably could be some actual content, such as discussion of the reasons for selecting various sexual positions, not least being different types of physiological stimulation, but also to take into account physical inabilities; instead, this is a throwaway parting thought — and, predictably, entirely unsourced essayism. Overlooked as well is the meditative/spiritual aspect, which demonstrates why this page is such an inept List: there is no mention at all of karezza (coitus reservatus) or tantric sex, and Kama Sutra is mentioned here only as a sex manual for Western dilettantes.
Maybe if it were an actual article, editors would be encouraged to add actual encyclopedic content. Instead, they are met with a spastic fistful of trivia lists, and no clear space to add general prose. As a result, the fanboy cruft continues to bloat like a dead frog in the sun.
Most people mostly have sex as a couple, with no onlookers or image recording. Therefore, a collection of cliched positions (chosen for visual novelty rather than enjoyability) and group-sex configurations are of interest primarily as sexual fantasy. Wikipedia IS NOT an instruction manual, IS NOT a textbook, and IS NOT a field guide for porn-video addicts — no matter how it's viewed, this "article" cannot escape violating WP:NOT.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
No. Reliable sources show "sex position" is a notable topic. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
List five.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is a discussion.
Coitus reservatus and tantric sex are not sex positions. Parts of the article are sourced, and most of the rest can be sourced. No editor should be expecting others to source material for them. Most Wikipedia editors -- at least the experienced ones -- know not to come to an article's talk page to complain about a lack of sourcing. Well, unless the sourcing is WP:Synthesis. Other than that, they either source the material themselves or tag the article or sections within it as unsourced. You often state "essayism" for the article you complain about. If one is to consider this a list, a list is not automatically "essayism." And since it's a sex position article (list or not), of course it's going to note what is done during the sex position. Like others before you, you are misapplying WP:NOTHOWTO. Like WP:NOTHOWTO notes, "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." Your "a collection of cliched positions" is lost on me. Besides the fact that clichéd sex positions should be included, the article also includes non-clichéd sex positions. In other words, stuff that is usually practiced in pornography rather than in real-life. If you have reliable sources to supposed non-clichéd sex positions, then do list them here. And per WP:Due weight, we should be giving most our weight to the more common ("clichéd") sex positions anyway. We shouldn't be including atypical sex positions just to include them. If we are to consider this a list, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists makes clear what the purpose of lists are. Not all of them are sourced. In fact, they often are not sourced...depending on the type of list they are. But like I stated, this article can be formatted to remove the bullet points and focus more on prose. And even in that case, we'd still have sections devoted to specific sex positions. Because, you know, this is the Sex position article. Adding more prose for each section is not a problem as long as the material is reliably sourced. You are complaining about something that is easily fixed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Stopping by to call "B.S.!" again.
Q: When is a sex position not a sex position?
A: When it's not a sex position!
It's hardly Zen. The entire Sex position#Non-penetrative section is about sex TECHNIQUE (and pornfan categorizations) rather than ANY sort of "position." The immediately previous Other positions subsection is doubly egregious for being entirely wrong in the heading — even the "fisting is dangerous!!" squawking doesn't belong at all because (say it with me) there is no "sex position" even mentioned. (The need to cite five sources makes clear the contributor realizes it's BS and has overcompensated, as typical.)
Get educated: WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:NOTADVICE, WP:NOTCASE, probably WP:NOTGUIDE.
Being as it's been contended that THIS IS NOT A LIST, I would therefore say hold it to the standards expected of an article and delete all the unsourced cruft… which then according to Wikipedia rules CANNOT be reverted back without proper citations, so it's not like there'd be any edit-warring, eh?
Ergo, either the page title MUST be changed, or all that cruft is liable to deletion as irrelevant to the topic at hand. Pick one.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I wonder why you think your endless "let me go from article to article and complain about it based on my personal opinions and a misuse of guidelines and policies" approach is productive. Same goes for you talking down to editors in the process. I mean, "get educated"? Really? Has this approach worked for you? I don't see that it has. And as for your demand? Curved Space was clear at Talk:Facial (sex act) about your "do what I say" and "my way or the highway" attitude. You aren't helping. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Other animals

Add link to Sex position/Archive 2 in other species. E.g., [10] different genders on top/bottom for different insects. Jidanni (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requsexest on 9 June 2020

41.115.95.96 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
please specify what edit you wish to be made IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

section: Number of positions, and effects on physical abilities

here is a mention of the "starfish position" which is the first and only time throughout the article, without any clarification to it. this results in inconsistency. my suggestion is either delete this sentence or clarify in the article what is this.89.134.199.32 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

"Suspended congress" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Suspended congress. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#Suspended congress until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 02:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

section: Number of positions, and effects on physical abilities

here is a mention of the "starfish position" which is the first and only time throughout the article, without any clarification to it. this results in inconsistency. my suggestion is either delete this sentence or clarify in the article what is this.89.134.199.32 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

I agree 2602:306:BDBD:C00:F835:B7C4:539D:3BB9 (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes Slovoko (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

2603:6080:4B03:BC06:998:9457:4E56:F3CE (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)It needs more diversity- e.g. two women; the initial picture is mostly man-woman (and mostly man in a controlling position) with some man-man. Additionally, they are all penetrative. Non-penetrative sex positions should be given greater focus2603:6080:4B03:BC06:998:9457:4E56:F3CE (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@2603:6080:4B03:BC06:998:9457:4E56:F3CE they made a whole other page about it man Moho84 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_position/Archive_2&oldid=1220036700"