Talk:Anal sex

pedophile image

The article currently features a pedophile image of man on boy, taken from Warren Cup. In my opinion the image is gratuitous. Apparently this article is not about anal intercourse between consenting adults. In that case an image on bestiality would also be appropriate. Why is there no image of a man penetrating an animal? Surely you can find one out there. That would put the pedophile image in an appropriate context, I think. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Your concerns look baseless to me; there appears to be no evidence to back your assertion that this is a "pedophile" image or one that depicts any act that was unlawful at the time and in the place the image was made (i.e., ancient Rome). Your invocation of bestiality is bizarre and inapposite; it creates the appearance of homophobic POV-pushing. You're welcome to try and build consensus around your apparent distaste for the image of an ancient Roman artifact and desire for it to be removed from the article, but you're very unlikely to gain much traction until you stop with the hystrionics, calm down and behave more like a grownup coöperatively working toward the betterment—and not the censorship—of an encyclopædia. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the article about anal intercourse between consenting adults? If it is, the Warren Cup image does not belong here. The Warren cup image certainly shows a slave boy being penetrated (Romans and Greeks considered sodomy between citizens to be wrong but slaves and non-citizens were considered fair game). If however non-consenting partners are included in this article, images showing bestiality and gang-rape are just as valid, and they should be included here as evidence that this article is not promoting sex with minors. That's a logical argument, not a hysterical one. Now it's your turn to come up with a mature reply. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Eyeless in Gaza. Are there any reliable sources that confirm that this image is a portrayal of pedophilia? Whether there are or aren't, I want to point out that pedophilia is accurately defined as the sexual preference for prepubescent children...even though the term is also used in a wider context (mostly by non-experts). Pedophilia is also more about what is going on in a person's mind than the act of child sexual abuse, which is why some child molesters are not diagnosed as pedophiles. Further, the image may not actually be of an adult man and a prepubescent child, but rather one of an adult man and an adolescent/pubescent male...which, in that case, falls under pederasty. But either way, I understand your concern if the image is of an adult man and a minor (whether prepubescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent). And since we already have an image there in that section, I don't mind if this image is removed. It hasn't been in this article as long as the aforementioned one anyway. So, Scheinwerfermann, do you mind if it is removed? Flyer22 (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact there are two images of the Warren Cup here and you certainly don't need both. Pederasty is an unfortunately elastic term and it opens the way for pedophiles to wrap themselves in the banner of gay rights, unless we are vigilant. I'm not a homophobe. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, there are three images from the Warren Cup here and while we don't need all three, at least one ought to stay. Which one(s) is or are meeting with your disapproval? As for not being a homophobe, no, certainly you're not, which is of course why you were on about bestiality and suchlike. Right?—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You're cross with me for using words like bestiality? I suppose you are suffering homophobia-phobia. I'm not a homophobe. I would like to see a clear understanding that this article is about anal sex between consenting adults. According to that focus, there are a number of images here that look questionable (the ancient settings certainly depict slaves as the recipients of anal sex). But the image of the boy is the most questionable and that's the one I think should go, if I coiuld pick only one. Thanks for asking. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Eyeless in Gaza, while some pedophiles may hide under the term pederasty, it certainly is not meant to equate to the same thing as pedophilia with regard to prepubescent vs. clearly pubescent and/or post-pubescent males, or else it would just be merged with the Pedophilia article or called a subset of it directly. I don't know any LGBT person who supports pederasty, by the way, at least not when talking about adult men and males under the age of majority. But on the topic of how many Warren Cup images there are, I only see two. What is the third one, Scheinwerfermann? Flyer22 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Warren Cup image depicts act of anal sex between human participants, and any speculation that it may be pedophile, pederasty, non-consensual, etc. is irrelevant. You said, quote "Apparently this article is not about anal intercourse between consenting adults." And indeed, this article is NOT about anal intercourse between consenting adults, it's about anal sex as a human sex act regardless of whether the act arises out of pedophilia, rape, sexual slavery, etc.. The image is pertinent to the article as it provides insight into the historical context and the social circumstances under which anal sex was practiced, and the participants (forced or not) thereof. To say that it does not belong because it depicts pedophilia in addition to anal sex when the article is not about pedophilia is as moot an argument as saying that the picture of Mao Zedong doesn't belong on the Man page because the article isn't about politics (which was actually put forward on Talk:Man#Why_is_there_Mao_zhedongs_picture_here.3F).Chevrox (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Common misconception describes anal sex as practiced almost exclusively by gay men."

I don't understand this edit by Ed Poor, which was reverted. Did you not read the sources? They are quite clear that people commonly associate anal sex with male homosexuality. And the Male to male section has more sources confirming this very thing. How is this at all debatable? If the sources are saying that people mainly think about gay men when they think of anal sex or vice versa, how is that not a common misconception? The following sources are quite clear about this misconception (although the latter was removed from the article because I didn't feel it was needed (with the better sources already present):[1][2][3][4] In fact, the first source specifically says "There is a common misconception that anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men. This is certainly not the case."

I will go ahead and move the Go Ask Alice! source up higher. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

While you are editing, I hope you'll remove the man-on-boy image, as discussed above. There did seem to be some kind of consensus about that. :} Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed.[5] Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: I updated the line to this because it works just as well and is not likely to give us problems, especially since it all flows in one line. Flyer22 (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit comment What evidence is there that many people have this "misconception"? should have been more clear. I was really asking two things:

1. Who says it's a misconception that anal sex is practiced almost exclusively by gay men? And,
2. What evidence is there, that this notion is "common"?

A good way to answer the first question would be to examine statistical studies of anal sex. To say that something is practiced "almost exclusively" by some group is something rather easy to disprove. One need only show that a significant number of people outside this group also practice it.

• Are arrests "almost exclusively" performed by police officers? (Not if enough people do citizen's arrest.)
• Do surgeons "almost exclusively" sew up wounds and incisions? (Not if nurses and paramedics also do it.)
• Are people who feed human milk to babies "almost exclusively" women? (Not if men bottle-feed babies with expressed milk.)
• But are women who breast-feed infants "almost exclusively" the mothers of those children? (This would be true, provided the percentage was high enough).

If, say, only 75% of those who practice (receptive) anal sex are gay men, I personally would agree with the term "misconception", but we'd still need a source. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I was going by reliable sources and I still am. I don't have much more to state other than that. It is not our job to examine how these sources came about their conclusion. The fact is...they have concluded it. And various other reliable sources state the same thing, with the exclusion of "almost exclusively." As WP:Verifiability states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." But from my personal experience, I have observed that most people do indeed think that all gay men have anal sex. Not only is it promoted as "gay sex" often, but often/usually as the only form of sex that gay men do and/or can take part in, similar to how oral sex is so heavily associated with "lesbian sex." The sources I listed above show this (about anal sex). The first source is a health website detailing the research findings (or rather reports) of two doctors. And Go Ask Alice! is a health website that answers from a research standpoint, using a continuous review and update process to ensure accuracy of their content, so I am certain that they are basing their response on research and not popular belief. And while maybe it is no longer a common misconception that anal sex is practiced "almost exclusively" by gay men, with the rise of anal sex among heterosexuals in recent years, it is still a common misconception that all gay men have anal sex, and I'm quite sure that most people believe that anal sex is practiced mostly by gay men. Maybe it is (practiced mostly by gay men); maybe it isn't. Studies on that topic vary (as this article shows). But anal sex is definitely reported by reliable sources (ones included in this article) as not having been practiced as much by heterosexuals as it is today, which is no doubt why so many people (some gay men and lesbians as well) believe that it's still mostly gay men who do it. But, anyway, as you can see, I changed the wording and it no longer says "almost exclusively." And like I stated, the first source uses the word "misconception" directly, not that I feel that any of the sources have to state "misconception" directly, since it is quite clear that they are talking about a misconception. The definition of misconception is: "A mistaken thought, idea, or notion; a misunderstanding." That without a doubt applies here. "Misconception" is just an alternate way of saying it, after all. Even so, "misconception" is also no longer in the wording. Flyer22 (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask that editors carefully check sources or the lower body of the article for material that is mentioned in the lead? What is covered in the lead is typically going to be covered in the lower body of the article as well, per WP:LEAD. I have had to correct yet another editor on the line about not all gay men engaging in anal sex. I understand that it is shocking for some to discover that this is a myth (that all gay men have anal sex), but that is what it is -- a myth. As seen in the edit I just reverted, Twinsday questioned if this was based on research. Um, what else do you think it's based on? Hearsay? The two sources that were supporting the "research" part of the line, before I added two more to support it, are basing their statements on research. Go Ask Alice!, for example, is a great source for reporting on research findings, even if not as great as a research journal. The Male to male Prevalence section also documents research about gay men engaging in anal sex; these numbers show that not all gay men do it. Like heterosexual anal sex, there is no consistent number for how many gay men engage in anal sex. The Prevalence sections and the two additional sources I added to the lead show this. A 1994 study found that that 80% of gay men reported engaging in anal sex, other sources say that between 10 and 40 percent of gay men do not include anal intercourse in their lovemaking activities. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), with information published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), states that two thirds of gay men have anal sex. The bottomline is that research is saying this, not personal opinion. The "all gay men have anal sex" myth information belongs in the lead not only because we are mentioning that people of all sexual orientations engage in anal sex, but because that belief is such a big myth. Now, hopefully, with four sources backing this material, it will not be challenged again. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hygiene concerns

This article does not cover hygiene concerns or prepartation for anal sex, suggest verbaitam copy of anal masturbation#Hygiene and enema — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.41.193 (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It mentions preparation and hygiene concerns in the last paragraph of the Anatomy and stimulation section. What more is there to say other than going into detail that would border on a WP:How to guide, which is against Wikipedia policy? People reading this article should already know that the anus has harmful bacteria. And if they don't know that, the Anus and Human anus articles, which we link to, as well as the Health risks section in this article, make this clear. So does the Anilingus article, which we also link to. And in the Male to female section, we make clear that "the man should never move from anal sex immediately to vaginal sex while barebacking or without changing the condom, due to infections that can arise in the vagina by bacteria present within the anus" and that "this also applies to the use of sex toys." So, yes, preparation for anal sex and hygiene are covered. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That said, maybe a bit of what is mentioned in the Anal masturbation#Hygiene section should be in the Anatomy and stimulation section of this article. The bit about using condoms to cover sex toys and minimizing the potential transfer of germs between sexual partners. But then again, that would be going into safe sex issues which are already covered elsewhere, like in the lead (intro) and in the Health risks section. Anything else about germs and STDs should go there -- in the Health risks section. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2012

In Rabbi Fishel Jacobs' book, "Family Purity", copyrite 2000, he states, on page 137, that, "Kissing, or even looking at the wife's private place is forbidden." During certain times of the month, ALL physical contact is forbidden between husband and wife: "The idea of no physical contact for at least 12 days a month is perhaps the one aspect within the Jewish marriage cycle which has most captured the public's attention...", Page 32. To say that husbands and wives can basically do whatever they want is quite misleading!

24.184.107.162 (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: The article's current content regarding Jewish views on anal sex is based on the Mishneh Torah, a book many have found worthy of commentary that surely presents a noteworthy view. You're contrasting that with the view of one particular rabbi from one particular book, neither of which anyone has yet found reason to create an article about in the English Wikipedia. Sorry, but for this edit request to succeed, you need to either make a case that Rabbi Jacobs' views are notable enough to warrant inclusion, or support your criticism with reference to a source that is clearly worthy of note. The most relevant Wikipedia policy here is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, particularly the sections on undue weight and religion. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Larcomuseumanalsex.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Larcomuseumanalsex.jpg, 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:Larcomuseumanalsex.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)