Talk:Sex positions

Archives

1 2

"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)

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)

• Oppose there is a merge tag on this article to merge "Sex position" into the list, and I think that is a better idea. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Er, I added that tag. I'm proposing a merge and then a move. To avoid losing the contribution history, the page currently at List of sex positions should be the primary page, but that would require deleting Sex position, which requires admin intervention, hence the Requested Move. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Your proposal here didn't state how you'd like to handle things (ie. merge, move, histories, etc). Aside from that, "list of sex positions" seems like a better title. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I speak in favour of merging Sex position to List of sex positions.Diptanshu^Talk 15:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• I have text-merged Sex position to List of sex positions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Now it looks like Sex positions would be the optimal title (the article is more than simply a list; on the other hand it deals with the topic of (the class of) sex positions rather than the concept of "sex position" itself (I don't know if that's a good explanation, but the idea seems intuitive to me), and the title should therefore be plural.--Kotniski (talk) 14:40, 9 October 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)

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)

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.

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)