Talk:Frot

New section for frot vs anal debate

I apologize for removing the Frot vs. anal sex section without any explanation. It was ill-advised and generally unproductive.

However, I do think that the previous placement in inappropriate, because it implies that the "frot advocates'" perceptions of frot are in some sense fact rather than opinion. I understand that the section itself is careful to cite opinions where opinions are expressed. However, the section is sandwiched in between two sections that state more-or-less objective facts about safe sex and the observation of frot in non-human animals. I therefore feel that such placement, when seen in the context of where other articles of sex acts place sections about societal and religious perception, implies that the perceptions of frot among frot advocates is somehow more objective than the perceptions of other sex acts. Moving "frot advoactes'" perceptions of frot to a separate section seems to me to reduce the aforementioned implications while keeping the perceptions of frot within the frot article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summaries: It should stay under the Sexual practices section, not all the way down, under the bonobo section. It's a fact that some gay men prefer frot over anal sex, and see it as an alternative to anal sex, for various reasons, which means it belongs in the Sexual practices section. It being a subsection of the Sexual practices section does not imply that the frot advocates' perceptions of frot are in some sense fact rather than opinion. All it does is show that it is a fact that "frot over anal" is a sexual practice, and not just by frot advocates; gay men who simply prefer frot over anal without denouncing anal sex are also mentioned (right at the beginning).

I did, however, tweak the title again, to As an alternative to anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you checked the other articles on sex acts? Those that have section on health keep those sections separate from the sections on societal perceptions. Mijopaalmc (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to check other Wikipedia sex articles; I work on the most prominent ones. And for the last time, it is not a societal perception that some gay men prefer frot over anal sex. That is a fact. They prefer it for reasons that have to do with sexual activities, which is why it belongs in the Sexual practices section. The other sex articles, including the Anal sex article, do the same thing. I'm taking this matter to RfC right below, because you are letting your distaste for this subject hamper the article, and I do not need to violate WP:3RR. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I got overzealous in insiting on my edits. Mijopaalmc (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I also listed this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I also listed this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexuality. Mijopaalmc (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That project isn't very active, which is why I didn't list it there. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should preference for frot over anal sex be a subsection of the Sexual practices section?

One view is that "frot vs. anal sex" is merely a societal perception and should have its own section. The other view is that this is about a sexual practice, and does not belong in its own section because it is not societal perception that some gay men prefer frot over anal sex. So the question is...should the information regarding a preference for frot over anal sex, whether as a means of safe sex or otherwise, be excluded from the Sexual practices section?

Part of this discussion is had above this RfC question on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we are understanding one another. The preference for frot over anal sex, at least in the segment of the MSM population that prefers to call the sex act "frot", is due to the perceptions of these individuals that anal sex in dangerous and degrading. Now, I understand that the majority of MSM may not engage in anal sex but there are a variety of reasons cited in the material listed as references. There is also a heavy emphasis in the text on the attitudes that Bill Weintraub and his associates have towards anal sex, which are in fact based on their perception of anal sex and its relation to HIV transmission, inequality, effeminacy, and non-genital-centric views of sex and frot and its relation to safe sex, equality, masculinity, and genital-centric views of sex. These particular issue are not "facts" in sense that they exist independently of of our perception of them (I realize that this extremely thorny philosophical ground). Therefore these perceptions do not belong interlaced with statistics about HIV transmission and the general prevalence (or lack thereof) of anal sex among MSM.

I don't have any reservations about including information about the perceptions of frot among MSM, but it is imperative that we disentangle opinion and perception from fact. For instance, it is a fact that during vaginal intercourse, the male intromits his penis in to the female's vagina. Similarly, it is a fact that during homosexual anal sex, one males intromits his penis into the other male's anus. However, it is an opinion that the formal equivalence between these two actions (i. e., the intromission of a penis into a pelvic orifice) implies a formal equivalence between the actors (i. e., the insertive partner is, by virtue of penetrating a pelvic orifice, is a man and the receptive partner is, by virtue of being penetrated, a woman). Furthermore, it is a fact that males and females are chromosomally, genitally, gonadally and hormonally non-identical. However, it is similarly an opinion that such nonidentity translates to an inequality in such a way that the supposed gender transformation of a sex partner of one gender to the other gender by virtue of their assuming the sex role of the other gender is degrading or dehumanizing.

My "distaste" for the alternate ordering of the topics is therefore not a "distaste" for the frot itself but a wariness of presenting opinion as fact. There is definitely factual content in the the section under discussion as it is written and regardless of how it is titled. However, the factual content is often juxtaposed (sometimes even interposed) with opinion. For instance, the first sentence of the section contains a factual statement about how most MSM prefer non-anal sex. However, it goes on to describe that the preference for non-anal intercourse is due to due to the perception that non-anal sex is "more affectionate" (which is interesting in contradistinction to the research on barebacking which suggest that one of the reasons MSM choose to forgo condoms is to increase intimacy). I do understand that all of the statements in the section could be construed as statements of facts about opinion, but I understand statements of facts about opinions to be different than statements of facts themselves insofar as the subject of the former is debatable while the subject of the latter is not. For instance, it is debatable (and ultimately a matter of personal taste) that non-anal sex is in fact more affectionate, where as it is not debatable that most MSM prefer non-anal sex to anal sex. Mijopaalmc (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not understanding each other, due to your mindset -- your perception. You keep calling "frot over anal" a perception, as if it is not a fact that some gay men and men who have sex with men in general (MSM) prefer frot over anal sex. Whether we call it frot or frottage, the same is true -- some gay men prefer it to anal sex, and not just because they feel that anal sex is dangerous and degrading. Many prefer it for reasons of pleasure only. And whether some gay men, or men who have sex with men in general, feel that anal sex is dangerous and degrading does not get around the fact that this is related to the sexual practice of frot. You have gutted the Sexual practices section by taking out the very reasons why some gay men (and men who have sex with men in general) engage in frot -- besides your "anal sex is dangerous and degrading" examples, others engage in frot because they feel it is more affectionate, a sex safe alternative to anal sex, doesn't hurt, etc., etc. Therefore, it belongs in the Sexual practices section about frot, plain and simple. It being there does not mean that frot advocates' opinions are fact or are being presented as fact. No more than it means so in the Homosexual section of the Anal sex article. No more than it means so of the opinions of women on anal sex in the Heterosexual section of the Anal sex article. No more than it means so of heterosexual couples feeling that anal sex preserves female virginity. Suffice it to say, I highly doubt that anyone is going to take statements that are clearly opinion as fact, especially Bill Weintraub's opinion that frot is "real sex." Nor do I see how having the section as a subsection of Sexual practices is implying/presenting opinions as fact. The section does not even begin saying that "most MSM prefer non-anal sex"; it says "some," and the reasons why. Further, HIV/AIDS transmission has a lot to do with anal sex, as various sources can attest to. So, yes, that is a fact, and is one of the reasons some gay men/MSMs prefer to engage in frot over anal sex. You equally disregard the fact that the section relays pro-anal sex information as well, and that more can be added on that matter. So needless to say, I do not understand your reasoning at all.

When I stated your "distaste," I meant your distaste for the "frot vs. anal" debate. You have continuously acted as though this stance does not exist outside of Bill Weintraub and his groups, have tried to get this article deleted, moved/merged. Not to mention...recently removing the very reliably sourced Frot vs. anal sex section for no valid reason. You even moved "anal sex" out of the title, which leaves the title not as specific as it should be (which I am definitely going to change, by the way). So, yes, I find it hard to believe that you do not have a distaste for this subject. Your personal beliefs should not hamper this article. In fact, as you have continually undermined this article (from your edits, and past and recent discussions I have read), I feel that it is time you step away from it...completely. Also, I ask that you refrain from your long-winded explanations. Your feelings are clear, and it is clear that I disagree with them. I don't need to read them again or understand them, because I won't understand them (at least not outside of what I already think of your presence at this article). Flyer22 (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I made an In society section and placed it there for now, with the specific subsection title Comparison to anal sex. This is a breakup of the initial title you had going on, so it shouldn't be a problem. Per Wikipedia:Manual of style, the section title should be specific as to what the matter is about...unless the topic is too broad. With the way I have formatted it, I can now see a valid argument for it staying where it is, but I still feel it belongs as a subsection of the Sexual practices section, per my reasoning above. Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But the section is not only about sexual practices; it's about how those sexual practices are perceived by different groups in society. Or are you claiming that being penetrated makes a man into a woman because a woman is fundamentally defined by being penetrated? Mijopaalmc (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. It does not only have to be about sexual practices. Of course sections on sexual practices are going to cover people's opinions about those sexual practices. The Sexual intercourse, Anal sex, Oral sex and Non-penetrative sex articles do the same thing. The topic "sexual practices" covers the acts and reasons why people do them. So, again, your rationale is extremely flawed. And your question right there at end just proves why you should completely depart from this article. No where have I given the impression that I believe "being penetrated makes a man into a woman because a woman is fundamentally defined by being penetrated." I am female, if I haven't already stated that on this talk page before (it's made clear on my user page and talk page), and I certainly do not believe that a woman is fundamentally defined by being penetrated. Nor do I apply that to gay men who enjoy anal sex. Unlike you, I have no agenda in editing this article, and my being female makes me the most objective in dealing with/editing it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your being female in no way makes you objective. You seem to be ignoring that the other articles on sex acts (with the exception of the anal sex article, which is similarly influenced by the rhetoric of the Bill Weintraub) separate factual information about the acts from how people perceive them. The sexual intercourse article has separate sections on health effects and ethical, moral, and legal issues, and theoral sex article has separate sections on STD risk and cultural attitudes. In other words, both articles separate scientific fact from societal opinion. I don't see why the frot and anal sex articles should mix the two, especially when doing so creates POV. Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel that it does make me objective, as pretty much stated by a gay male editor on my talk page. I simply am not concerned with the same things you are. I have no agenda, such as getting this article deleted or strongly trying to keep it for personal reasons. You do. It makes no sense to say that I am ignoring other articles on sex acts when I just pointed them out above. The Anal sex article is not similarly influenced by the rhetoric of Bill Weintraub. He is used as a reference, sure, but most of the references are not attributed to him. It's a fact that there are men outside of Bill Weintraub and his group who think the same way about anal sex. That paragraph states the opinions/feelings of some gay men. And the Sexual intercourse article? The Sexual intercourse article, which I am largely responsible for designing, has a Sexual practices section which clearly states beliefs about certain sexual acts. People believing that some acts are safer than others is even in the section right below that (still under Practices). People's beliefs about sexual practices can go in the sections about sexual practices. You point out the Oral sex article, but do you not see that it does the same thing in the Utility section? That it also includes people's opinions about the sex act? Are you saying the fact that it's not titled Sexual practices somehow makes it different? You keep pointing to articles that do the same thing. Of course the general society's opinions about health effects are not going to go in the health effects sections. Those sections are for facts and theories by experts. But the general society's opinions about health effects can go in the sexual practices sections -- which cover why people partake in sexual acts and some sexual acts over others. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

To make something clear, though, I don't mind as much with the way the section is formatted now. I already felt that it needed a more encyclopedic title than Frot vs. anal sex. And it's clear that we won't be getting much help in working out issues with this article this time either. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can try to work it out amongst ourselves. To give a specific example of a perception about anal sex listed in the section, it says "while other frot advocates denounce anal sex as an unnecessary health risk, as mimicking heterosexual vaginal sex, and degrading to the receptive partner". The issue here is that, while it is a fact that the man penetrates the woman's vagina during vaginal sex and one man penetrates another man's anus during homosexual anal sex, it is not clear how the formal equivalence between the actions translates to the real equivalence between actors. In particular, it is not clear how homosexual anal sex "mimics heterosexual vaginal sex", except that there is an orifice being penetrated, or "is degrading to the receptive partner", except that it formally equates the receptive man with a woman. Yet both the frot men and the g0ys make both the mimicry claim [1][2] and the degradation claim[3][4] and connect it to effeminacy in gay men[5][6]. Neither mimicry, degradation, nor effeminacy are logically entailed by the fact that one man penetrates another man during homosexual anal sex. They are all derived from perceptions about the proper roles of men and women during sexual intercourse and the relation of men to women, and therefore don't belong in a section that describes the fact about the health risks and prevalence of the act. Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what more needs to be worked out. You have your compromise -- the section separated from the Sexual practices section and renamed, even though I disagree with the placement for the reasons I mentioned above.

It does not need to be made clear "how homosexual anal sex mimics heterosexual vaginal sex," as this is the opinion of some gay men. It is clear that it is the opinion of some gay men. It is also clear to me (and this could be elaborated on in the article, if you want it to be made clear, but it would be leaning too much toward WP:UNDUE) that they are making the comparison based on what you stated -- that there is an orifice being penetrated; they feel that the anus should not be penetrated for sex and that therefore gay men who engage in anal sex are mimicking vaginal sex because they want to penetrate/be penetrated too. They are saying that anal sex only became prominent among gay men because of the heterosexist view that one of the partners needs to be penetrated for both to have "real sex." While I don't agree with their belief about gay men being turned into women and all that other stuff by engaging in anal sex (interesting that they don't feel the same about oral sex), I understand what they mean about the heterosexist view of sex. I have also heard it in the lesbian community; for example, the Lesbian bed death article, which I am also responsible for fixing up, touches on this. As for these views on anal sex belonging in the Sexual practices section as a subsection, I already stated just about all I have to state on this matter above. We simply disagree. But you have your compromise. Removing these views completely because you don't like them is not up for debate. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said that I favored removing the societal attitudes section; I just said that it should be in a similar place as the sections on Ethical, Moral and Legal section in the Sexual Intercourse article and the Cultural Attitudes section in the Oral Sex article. I have amply explained my reasons in my above post, and they have nothing to do with "not liking" the frot vs anal sex debate. Rather, I object cultural attitudes being presented as scientific fact. Therefore, the information about how degrading anal sex is perceived to be does not belong in the section containing the scientific fact about frot's practice as a safe-sex alternative and its STI transmission risks. Again, this just echoes how cultural attitudes towards sex acts are dealt with the in the Sexual Intercourse and Oral Sex articles.

If nothing else, the the section under discussion is different from the beliefs stated in the comparable section in other article because it would make the bulk of the Sexual Practices section if it were places where it originally was, giving undue weight to the frot vs anal sex debate. Mijopaalmc (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

By "Removing these views completely," I was speaking of removing any one statement. You have thoroughly explained your reasons, and I have thoroughly disagreed with them. And, yes, you have in the past made it clear that you do not like the frot vs. anal sex debate in this article. Your concerns with that section a month ago or so were valid, which is why I improved it. And yet it seems you had/have even more of an issue with it now. No doubt due to statements such as the vaginal sex comparison. Again, no cultural attitudes were/are being presented as scientific fact in that section, and it being a subsection of the Sexual practices section did not make that any more true. I am not understanding what you do not understand about that. I ask that you stop trying to convince me of it, because I don't see it...at all. I have been more than clear about that. You act as though people's opinions were in a Health effects section. They were not. They were presented in a subsection of the Sexual practices section. Just because there is a Safe sex subsection above that...does not mean that these opinions were in/a part of that section. These were two separate sections, a part of a larger section titled Sexual practices. And, yes, a Sexual practices section should cover people's attitudes about those sexual practices. The other articles do the same thing. Because, make no mistake about it, the Utility section of the Oral sex article, is a Sexual practices section addressing people's attitudes about the act. The only reason this article -- Frot -- did not have a Cultural views or In Society section is because this article isn't as big as the Sexual intercourse, Anal sex and Oral sex articles, and the information fit well where it was. In either regard, the matter is resolved now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You are misattributing a dislike of the frot vs anal sex debate to. The only thing that I objected to was the possibility that the article was presenting a pro-frot POV through its titling and organizational structure. We clearly disagree on both counts and I think that the "compromise" that we have come to is acceptable. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but it is inappropriate for you to accuse me of "hindering the article" and of having a hidden agenda.

Why should the attitude of the normative culture be placed elsewhere than those of other cultures? Mijopaalmc (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Mijopaalmc, you have tried to have this article deleted/merged/moved, and have displayed questionable edits on it. In the move discussion, you even said, "The frot article should not be about 'frot vs anal'; it should be about the act of 'frot'." So, clearly, I have had reason to believe you were editing this article with an agenda. As for your question, I'm not understanding it very clearly, but, similarly, I ask why this article should keep these opinions (MSM's opinions about anal sex) out of a section that is supposed to discuss sexual practices and why people engage in them...when the major three articles on sex acts do not even do this, despite having cultural views sections to tackle the subjects more thoroughly. But then again, you already know how I feel on this matter, so there is no need to keep repeating ourselves. Why ask me questions that are going to lead back into the same, settled discussion? I don't like repeating myself like this. We disagree. Let's leave it at that. I do apologize if I misjudged you, however. Flyer22 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-anal negativity "agenda" and the article title and organization

How is trying to make the article (including the title) NPOV "hindering the article"?

How is it succumbing to some "agenda"?

Look, the neutrality of the title has been discussed at length elsewhere on the talk page, and I would be happy the acquiesce if someone would provide a reliable source that defines frot in the way the article defines it, uses "frot" in contradistinction to "frottage", and cannot be traced back to Bill Weintraub. Currently, the sources that appear to have no obvious connection to Bill Weintraub (Gay Perspective: Things Our Homosexuality Tells Us about the Nature of God & the Universe, Gay men and anal eroticism: tops, bottoms, and versatiles, "Myth: All Gay Men Have Anal Sex") all call the act "frottage", as do the other sources that I have previously cited. Furthermore, The sources that are attributed to Bill Weintraub use "frot" and "frottage" more-or-less interchangeably and, when they do use "frot" situates firmly in a emphatically anti-anal sex ideology, which is why I question the neutrality of titling the article with such an ideologically charged term as "frot".

Mijopaalmc, I didn't view you as helping the article when you tried to get it deleted/merged/moved, or when you recently removed the reliably sourced Frot vs. anal sex section. That is why I viewed some of your edits/some of your talk page discussions as hindering the article.

The above -- trying to get the article to disappear, wanting certain aspects out, is what I saw as an agenda. It seems to me that you don't want this article to exist because you feel that the title represents an anti-anal sex stance. I can understand that, but this article is about so much more than an anti-anal sex stance or Bill Weintraub. It seemed to me that you wanted any negativity about anal sex to stay out of this article. I'm not sure if that was because of your concern with Bill Weintraub or whatever. But Bill Weintraub should be mentioned in this article, as long as he is not given UNDUE WEIGHT, and he isn't. He is the self-proclaimed creator of the term "frot" (in the male-male sense anyway, because I'm sure others had shortened "frottage" to "frot" as a shorthand term for "frottage" before he took the word and made it apply only to male-male sex), and he is often credited as the biggest frot advocate (the godfather of frot), which is why he should be mentioned in this article.

As for your "frot or frottage" points, I made the same points above -- at #Terms/synonyms for Frot -- but I don't see the article as POV for being titled Frot. I have read your arguments already, and I disagree that the title is POV; as stated above, the article covers more than an anti-anal sex stance and is not about Bill Weintraub. Some MSMs outside of Bill Weintraub, and who are not against anal sex, have embraced the term "frot" (the ones who use it interchangeably with "frottage"). The title seems more of a necessity to me, if there is going to be an article on this act specifically. Because what else would it be named to where it is specifically about male-male sex? "Frot" can at least be attributed to some reliable sources, even though they mention Bill Weintraub. And, I know, you say there doesn't need to be an article on male/male genital rubbing, but I say it is clear that enough other editors disagree; this article remains titled Frot...no matter how many times this is brought up. I do agree that the term "frot" is not too notable, but the act of male-to-male genital rubbing is and it seems that's why the article remains. There's nothing I can do about that. You've tried various things and even an RfC to tackle the Frot title, so it seems it's time to move on from that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I never tried to have the article deleted. I just don't think that it is NPOV to title the article "frot" for the reasons that I have listed above, especially that using a term that primarily describes a sex act within a specific ideology does give, in your typography, UNDUE WEIGHT to that ideology. It is strange that you think upholding the principles of Wikipedia is "hindering the article" and adhering to an "agenda".

Trying to merge or move articles doesn't delete the content or said article. It is therefore far from clear that I was "trying to get the article to disappear". Objecting to where the content about a particular subject appears is not the same thing as objecting to appearance of the content itself.

I don't object to "any negativity about anal sex" being in the article. (I apologized for removing the then-titled "Frot vs anal" because, upon further, reflection I did think that it was at least relevant to the topic of the article.) I do however object to the "negativity about anal sex" being interposed between objective, factual material about the prevalence of frot and its STI risks for the reasons that we have discussed at great length above.

In sum what I am objecting to whit respect to our interactions is your attribution of an "agenda" that "hinders the article" to me. The sum total of your actions with respect to the recent editorial decisions about the article has been to maintain the status quo. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with the status quo or its maintenance, but maintaining the status quo does not entail having an agenda that supports it. So why does objecting to the status quo imply an agenda against it? Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wanting the article merged/moved equates to deletion. This article would no longer exist, and it has no other name to be moved to. The only option would be to merge it to Non-penetrative sex, where most of what is here would not be included there...as this article is not small and a section this big on male/male sex in that article would be UNDUE WEIGHT unless we give the other couples (heterosexuals and lesbians) at least one section of equal or close to equal weight...unless, of course, it's argued that the male/male section deserves its length because it is more notable than some other sex acts and doesn't have its own article. So, yes, this article would no longer exist, and some of the content would likely be lost.

I do not think that upholding the principles of Wikipedia is hindering the article and adhering to an agenda. I have already made clear why I considered you as having an agenda, however. I also apologized if I was wrong. No need to dwell on it. I have nothing much more to state on that matter. And we've already been over the following: Negativity about anal sex was never interposed between objective, factual material about the prevalence of frot and its STI risks...unless you mean how the actual section (now titled Comparison to anal sex) is designed itself; it was included last, as there was (still is) a General subsection (which deals with the act in general, not really the prevalence of the act), a Safe sex subsection, and then the Frot vs. anal subsection. All three of these sections were under the bigger title Sexual practices, and the first two still are, because they are all aspects of the sexual practices of frot. But we have been over this time and time again. I no longer need to see your reasons for wanting the section excluded from the Sexual practices section, as you no longer need to see my reasons for why it should be included there. I don't have much more to state on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Merging or moving/renaming an article does not delete the content of a given article it just changes its location. What the essence of our disagreement about my conduct with respect to the article appears to be is a disagreement of what constitutes "the article". To me, "the article" is the content of the an article regardless of how it is titled, while apparently to you understand the title to be a fundamental part of "the article". While I did temporarily delete the content pertaining to the frot vs anal sex debate, I apologized for deleting it without explanation and explicitly said that I did consider it relevant to the article. Moreover, I (nor anyone else for that matter) did not seek to completely remove the article from Wikipedia. Thus, your attribution to me of actions that I did not take and reasons that you inferred from these alleged actions and your continual insistence that you apologized if you were wrong (nb: your phrasing seems not to acknowledge that you think that you are wrong, only that you could be wrong) focus on the contributor and not the contribution. In short, you should never have speculated about my motivations as they are irrelevant to the quality of the content that I presented. Mijopaalmc (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I clearly stated above, "This article would no longer exist, and it has no other name to be moved to." That is true, no matter if the content still exists somewhere else. There would no longer be an article titled Frot, which is what you want. To say this article would still exist because the content still would is not accurate in this case. If the Frot article were to still exist after a merge, then there would be no need for a merge. What would be the point of merges, if the articles still existed afterward? It's not like articles are merged on the basis of simply getting rid of article titles, not usually anyway. The content being in another article is not considered "an article within another article." It considered "one article" covering different aspects of a topic. That is my point. I also made clear that some of the content would likely be lost, and why. This is also deletion, even if partial. Plenty of merge discussions do not end with a person actually merging the content; they just redirect the article and that is that. I know this because I am thoroughly familiar/experienced with Wikipedia. You say, "Moreover, I (nor anyone else for that matter) did not seek to completely remove the article from Wikipedia." No one? Really? Then what is this deletion debate? Past discussions have also tried to get the article deleted. Merging counts as deletion here at Wikipedia, in some form or another; if you were to experience Wikipedia more often instead of being so concerned with this article for most of your time here as a Wikipedia editor, you would know that. My saying "If I was wrong" about you having an agenda will remain worded that way, because I do not know that I was/am wrong. Your explanations have not made me feel that "Yep, I was wrong," nor will any other explanations. Speculation about an editor's motivations are absolutely relevant to the quality of the content of an article when warranted, and is acceptable in enough cases. For example, the Pedophilia article. Myself and others have to constantly keep pedophiles from editing that article (more so in the past). When editors are revealed or suspected to be pedophiles, who they are is absolutely relevant; their edits are examined, and they are banned from the article and Wikipedia if thought to be pedophiles. Of course, my focus on you was not as extreme as that, and I apologize for resorting to that comparison (am only trying to make a point), but felt that I had reasons to suspect you had an agenda. You believe that such a conclusion was not warranted; I do. You are not going to get me to state that I shouldn't have felt that way. All you will get from me on this matter is my saying, "I apologize if I was wrong." Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice that the initiator of the "deletion debate" only moved to have the article merged and then revised his position to "move". I know you think that moving/merging is tantamount to deleting, but moving/merging doesn't necessarily delete content so I don't see how you can atribute an "agenda" to those who want a move/merger. Mijopaalmc (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm through with this discussion. We are going in circles. I notice everything in deletion debates. That nominator most definitely had an agenda. Merging makes the article go bye-bye too. If it didn't, there would be no point of merging. Moving, as in renaming the article, is not tantamount to deleting. In this case, however, there is no title to move this article to. Therefore, this means merging or deletion. And merging is tantamount to deletion, no matter if the content is sometimes saved, per everything I stated above about it. I know what merging does to the content in most cases. I know what I am talking about through years of editing experience at this site. You can continue to have your opinion. I really have no desire to debate with you any further. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up on the rewritten "frot vs. anal" section!

Mind you, I think the "Comparison to anal sex" heading is not quite descriptive enough of the section's content. How about "Gay male debates regarding frot and anal sex", or something along those lines?

But apart from that, the expansions and new links are great! Throbert McGee (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Did you just now notice its improvement? LOL. Or are you just now commenting on it? As for your suggested title, I'm not sure Mijopaalmc will go for that. But since the section is now a part of the new In society section instead of where it used to be (see above, as I'm sure you've noticed), he might. I'd suggest shortening your title to "Frot and anal debates," though. There's no need to state "gay male," and we must also take into account the Men who have sex with men title, as not all men who engage in sex with other men identify as gay. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the In society section is a decent compromise for the title. I'm not sure the Comparison to anal sex is as appropriate, because it is specifically about how MSM perceive frot. I propose that the section be retitled Among MSM and that section be broken into to subsections, General and In identity formation (provisional). I also think that the various groups that promote frot as part of a identity as an MSM are notable enough that they merit their own article with brief (no more than 250-word) summaries in this article and links to the main article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to anal sex is extremely appropriate. It is specific to what that section is about, and is a part of the title you originally constructed. It being about the way men who have sex with men (MSM) view the frot vs. anal sex topic is exactly the point. What do you think "men who have sex with men" encompasses? Read Men who have sex with men. The term is not only about men who do not identify as gay or bisexual. It is also used as a title to cover all men who have sex with men (gay or otherwise). This article is about men who have sex with men. Therefore, the views in this article are of course going to be primarily composed of MSM's views. Therefore, titling a section "Among MSM" is redundant. Titling a section "Construction of masculinity" is your POV, especially since the information you put under that title isn't even mostly about that. Only one part of the information questions a man's masculinity by being the bottom in anal sex. Most of it is about pleasure, preference, comfortableness, and health effects. And there definitely should not be a very small section with only one to three lines in it. Furthermore, there is no reason that this section needs to be split up into subsections, and nothing you state will convince me of this. Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by "the various groups that promote frot as part of a identity as an MSM are notable enough that they merit their own article with brief (no more than 250-word) summaries in this article and links to the main article..." Because, do you have any reliable sources that state this? If you mean Bill and his advocates. No, they are not notable enough for a split-off article. It would fail WP:Notability. And if you mean otherwise, what reliable sources are there stating that MSM view frot in the way you described?

You keep tampering with the section, and for trivial or odd reasons, I feel. I don't have time to satisfy you every few days (or weeks), by spending full days compromising with you after we already reached a compromise, and then you again find another reason to object to/complain about something. On a side note, I ask that you somewhat familiarize yourself with WP:Manual of Style for some of the points that I mean about your article titles. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the section to this. I removed the In Society title, as it is not needed, and was only holding a single subsection (which should not be done, for stylistic reasons). I left the Comparison to anal sex title as the main title, per above (it is specific as to what the section is about). And I split that section up into two subsections. Preferences, to cover the general reasons why some MSM prefer frot, and Debates, to specifically address the debates in regards to frot vs. anal sex. The main title is clear as to what the subject is about, and the two subtitles are clear that these are the opinions of people. Thus, this setup should be satisfactory for all three of us. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Preferences section needs a bit added to it about why some MSM prefer anal sex, to balance out "the preference for frot" material there. The Debates section already has views of MSM who prefer anal sex, but that section is more about debating frot vs. anal sex...and the "pro-anal MSM who debate frot" material needs a few more reliable sources and bits added to it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I balanced out the Preferences section a bit,[7][8] but more is needed of course. I'll do that when I get the time; the same goes for the Debates section. If no one else does it first. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked the section again, and added more to it. The Comparison to anal sex section now better shows why some MSM prefer anal sex, and specifically touches on the masculinity issue, with research showing that a male engaging in anal sex (being the bottom specifically) does not necessarily mean that he is less masculine. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed all of this. Does this balance things out for you enough to agree to remove the POV tag in that section? Or do you feel that more pro-anal information needs to be in the section first? Because, really, the POV tag is for articles or sections in articles that lean more toward one specific POV. That section has two paragraphs devoted to anti-anal. And two paragraphs devoted to pro-anal. It's just that the second paragraph isn't really a paragraph right now, and needs more added to it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to remove those lines, why not remove the whole debates section? It's just as opinion based as what you removed. Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the other stuff is sufficient enough to get across the point without leaning too heavily on that position, is reliably sourced, and something about the frot vs. anal sex debate should be mentioned in this article. I am not sure if these frot advocate sites count as reliable sources; however, they should not all be removed until we know for sure if they should be allowed in this article. And their being allowed in this article does not mean that they should be used to include so much POV. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor assistance

Update: Mijopaalmc has reported the discussion at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Disputes on Frot with Flyer22...without alerting me, and I just now had to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance requests are to seek new editors for the article. I did not need or particularly want to inform your as it is already quite clear the we have reached an impasse on the topics mentioned in the EAR. Mijopaalmc (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no, Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests are not only for new editors. It is for resolving disputes, period. It is clear why you did not alert me -- wanting to have your say, and slant things in your favor so that editors may come in here and make changes to this article all on the basis of your statements. No matter how you look at it, it was an opportunity for you to get to say whatever about me and the situation...without my being there to defend myself and my edits. Furthermore, you are not new...no matter that you are lacking in contributions and experience. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There you go again. You assume bad faith and construe what I wrote in a way that I did not intend and is relatively questionable. I said EARs are "to seek new editors for the article" not that they are "for new editors of the articles", which is obviously how you interpreted what I was saying. Moreover, I stated the dispute neutrally in EAR, so I don't understand what your objection is. If you want to discuss the actual dispute, you have this talk page on which to do it. Mijopaalmc (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot help but assume bad faith when an editor doesn't alert me to a dispute discussion that has to do with me. It may be your "newness" that made you act in such a way, but, generally, the opposing editor should alert the other editor of the discussion. Even though you worded things neutrally and provided a link to the past debates, you got to have extra say and give more of your own POV on the matter. That is clearly what my objection is. But what is done is done. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to be "alerted" to an EAR. EARs are to seek different editors than the ones that are already editing the article. The disputes can then be discussed on the article's talk page. What you seem to be doing is invoking some "unwritten rule" of wikiquette where "opposing editors" must "notify the other editor of the discussion". As far as I can tell from reading the procedure for how to submit an EAR, there is no such requirement or even a suggestion to do so. If you have an explicit citation, please link to it. Otherwise, you should desist from complaining about how you should have been notified and insisting that you weren't because I was acting in bad faith.

Frankly, I am getting tired of your continual accusations of various forms of bad faith. They are what truly hinder the article, because they make the regularly active editor appear hostile to change and focus the discussion on the talk page on the character of the newer editors rather than the actual content of the article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Did I say I need to be alerted? No, I stated what editors usually do -- experienced and good-faith editors. And why I objected to your actions of not alerting me. So, yes, an "unwritten rule" of wikiquette. You said you didn't understand why I objected. I tried to make it clear why I did. And as far as I'm concerned, editors should be alerted of things posted about them there just as much as places that require editors to do so.

You're tired of my actions? I have long been tired of your nitpicking at this article over things that are OPINIONS, with the irrational stance that opinions should not be mixed in with fact. Opinions are mixed in with fact all the time here at Wikipedia. Even opinions on health-related issues. And when they are, it is still clear what is opinion and what is fact. You talk about unwritten rules. Look at your "no opinions mixed in with medical facts" reasoning. I am not the one who has hindered this article. I am the main one who has fixed it up and provided reliable citations, while all you have done is complain, complain, complain, remove, remove, remove, nitpick, nitpick, nitpick; basically nothing that improves the article. And you wonder why I don't see you as helping most of the time. I have not called you out on "various forms of bad faith." The only thing (other than my comment above) I have accused you of is having an agenda, and I already stated that I will not apologize for having felt that way (or feeling that way now). These disputes of ours aren't going anywhere. This is why I end my comments with statements such as "what is done is done," but then you come back here and keep things going. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not mixing opinions with facts is part of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. The sources cited in the Debates section are arguably from a fringe group. Very little effort seems to have been made to determine the prevelence of the attitudes on masculinity and promiscuity expressed therein.

You also seriously need to review bad faith accusing another editor of having an agenda is the 11th and 24th example of assuming bad faith, and your continual refusal to apologize is further evidence that you are assuming bad faith. Mijopaalmc (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Where does Wikipedia:Neutral point of view state that opinions should not be mixed with facts? Opinions are mixed in with facts all the time here at Wikipedia, and is quite allowed. The other articles on sexual topics do the same thing. We've been over this before. The AIDS article and many other articles are examples of this as well. Medical facts might be stated, for example, and then an opinion from a doctor or researcher may be included. For the Frot article, frot advocates are not claiming anything outrageous about the health effects of anal sex. All that is mentioned there about the health effects is AIDS/HIV. By your view, we shouldn't state some MSM do not have anal sex because they want to avoid the health risks associated with anal sex? That makes no sense whatsoever! I did not add those frot advocacy sources that go right to the frot websites. If they are not reliable, then you should get that checked out, but their views are not "fringe," seeing as plenty of MSM feel the way they do regarding some aspects of anal sex, per the reliable sources I have added to this article.

You seriously need to stop trying to make me apologize. I only assume bad faith when I have reason to. I apologized if I was wrong. If I was wrong, you should have nothing to worry about. Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what to say, maybe I should let the "frot advocates" talk for themselves:

And that of course is what Robert's talking about in The Ultimate Defeat. Analists routinely claim that men do not have to experience anal penetration as degradation. They're wrong and Robert's right. What the analists are attempting is to use ideology to deny biological reality.[9]

Nevertheless, this is how it works: As sexually dimorphic beings, we conceive of men as penetrative and women as being penetrated. This is not simply a function of culture. Rather, it's a function of our most basic biology, and that's how we experience it. On a visceral, subconscious, and indeed inchoate level.When a man is penetrated, the act, he feels, turns him into a pseudo-woman. And he is effeminized by it. This point the gay leadership will not accept. They insist that men experience penetration as degrading only because a patriarchal culture tells them it is, and that with enough education or what is really indoctrination -- and at this point, the AIDS Service Organizations (ASOs) and their "safer-sex" educators are the prime agents of that propaganda -- a man will understand that it's not intrinsically degrading to be penetrated. That is nonsense. It might not be nonsense if human sexuality was purely a function of culture. But human sexuality is not purely a function of culture -- it's primarily a function of biology. Of course culture shapes some of our expression of that biology. But it cannot change the underlying biology, nor the essentially dualistic nature of the process.And for that reason, men experience penetration as degrading. That's why, in the ancient world, and no doubt in many places still in the contemporary world, victorious soldiers raped their male prisoners -- to degrade and humiliate them. What happens among contemporary gay men, though, is in some ways worse, since those gay men are taught to be in denial about what has actually happened. The reality of the experience, however, breaks through in effeminacy, in self-loathing language, and in self-destructive behavior. Thus it's common, as we've discussed, for anally receptive men to refer to themselves as mancunts, bottombitches, and pussyboys -- and -- most significantly -- as sluts and whores. Sluts and whores of course are promiscuous women. And that's the role these men assume. So: anal penetration leads to effeminization which leads to promiscuity which leads to more anal penetration. And so it goes. Over time, the behaviors feed into and reinforce each other. Effeminacy, for example, is both consequent to and facilitates anal penetration. While a degraded, effeminate self-image leads to more promiscuity. Were the leadership correct that men can be taught to accept penetration and not experience it as being in variance with their masculinity -- we would not see this process. But men cannot be taught that. We've had thirty years, after all, of analist propaganda about the allegedly masculine glories of being penetrated. And still anally-receptive men refer to themselves as bottom bitches and sluts and whores. It's more than apparent, after three decades of this particular social experiment, that anal penetration is, for a man as for a woman, intrinsically degrading. [10]

Mijopaalmc (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what that has to do with this article. This article notes the views of the masculinity issue, but only briefly, and I added a source which disputes it. The AIDS part, like I stated, is only relayed as a factor for some MSM choosing not to engage in anal sex. It should stay because it is one reason some MSM do not engage in anal sex. You are especially preoccupied with the "mimicking heterosexual vaginal sex" line too. Since I am indifferent to that line, and as a compromise, I would be okay with you removing it. I understand how it sounds too hostile, POV-ish, and that it is more so the belief of one or two groups. Furthermore, it's not included in the Anal sex article either. Flyer22 (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

De-eroticizing anal sex and condoms in the Debates section

It's as simple as this: citations should accurately reflect the material cited. Neither one of the articles[11][12] mention the risk of HIV infection outweighing the pleasure of anal sex. Thus, it is inaccurate to cite both articles in relation to the risk-benefit analysis.

Furthermore, the statement on de-eroticizing anal sex does not belong in the section because it is irrelevant to the comparison of frot and anal sex. One need not compare anal sex to frot at all in order to de-eroticize anal sex. Mijopaalmc (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's as simple as this: The citations accurately reflect my rewording of the material. You had a problem with the citations backing up the wording that "that even with a condom, the objective medical risks of being anally penetrated outweigh the subjective pleasure." I reworded the line to something frot advocates and others who campaign against anal sex actually do state -- that part of the reason they and others do not engage in anal sex is because of the medical risks. That is cited above in the links you now showcase. So your removal is without merit. If you want to specifically put these medical risks they are referring to -- HIV and AIDS -- then fine. But you cannot removal valid material that is accurately cited simply because you want it out of the article.

The statements on de-eroticizing anal sex belong in the section because they are partly about discouraging anal sex in favor of frot and other sex acts. Bill W. discourages it for reasons we already know, and he counts as "frot." The word "some" should be used because Bill W. in that interview is not the only one discouraging it, and the source also mentions his sites which have men on it who feel the same way he does. Thus, the source does have to do with frot, and is not only about Bill W.

Because of all this, I will be reverting you yet again. Before considering reverting me again, I ask that you see that I am absolutely correct on both accounts, and to take into consideration WP:3RR. If I have to report your continued removal of reliably sourced material, I will. You must make a valid case for removals such as that, and you have not. Flyer22 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You seriously need to stop making edits like this. I can most definitely report it as vandalism, since the references absolutely support the statement that frot advocates feel that the medical risks of being anally penetrated are not worth the practice of anal sex. The sources specifically point to men (such as the men on Bill W.'s sites) engaging in frot and discouraging anal sex because of health risks such as HIV and AIDS, so to say that the text is not accurately cited by the sources is false! 3RR doesn't apply when reverting vandalism. And I do view this continued removal of accurately sourced material as vandalism. Trying to get past 3RR by waiting several hours doesn't work either. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And what are you talking about "Previous citations"? Previous wording and previous citations do not matter. What matters is the current wording and current citations. And the current wording is backed up by the current citations. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, per this edit of yours? Still wrong. And I'm going to keep warning you (one or two more times is how many it should take) before I report you if you keep removing accurately sourced material. You said, "Still doesn't accurately portray the view stated in the sources." Simply false. The sources accurately attribute frot advocates such as Weintraub being concerned with the medical risks associated with anal sex. It clearly demonstrates AIDS and HIV as one of the reasons Weintraub does not partake in anal sex and as one of the reasons he advises against it. What are you reading that does not make that clear? The text is also accurately attributed to that one opponent who feels that anal sex should be de-eroticized. The fact that you keep reverting without discussion only further proves that your objections do not hold up in this case. Not to mention...removing the support of de-eroticizing anal sex without removing the psychologist's view that it should not be de-eroticized looks silly. Further, this edit by me adds more references to frot advocates feeling that anal sex encompasses disease, which, yes, is about medical risks, and this edit also takes care of everything. The section is now clearly balanced with attention on neutral and positive views on anal sex, as well as the negative, and even criticism of Weintraub and his followers by another frot supporter. There is no reason for you to nitpick or complain about this version of the section anymore...even though I know you'll find something to pick on. Flyer22 (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I also further tweaked the article section, and removed "mimicking heterosexual vaginal sex" from the Preferences section, which is something you have wanted for the longest now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Other editors

I have personally asked a few editors to help weigh in on discussions here and look after this article. I have no desire to keep having to converse with you alone. It never helps, and asking the LGBT WikiProject and RfC for assistance have not helped either. Thus, I asked four editors for assistance; all of them have been involved with LGBT topics here at Wikipedia in one way or another and are okay with such topics. I feel that the article is fine now, per my statements right above. But it can only help to have other editors' views of my improvements. Not to mention, it may help stop idiotic revert wars between us. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As I responded on my talk page, can you provide page numbers for the disputed source? I have no desire to read both long articles. CTJF83 17:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I just stated this on your talk page: Page 40 (to the right) of this source mentions how some gay men (whether frot advocates or otherwise partaking in some other sex act) campaign against anal sex, Bill Weintraub included. It also shows the quote from the male who specifically said one of the reasons he campaigns against anal sex is to save gay and bisexual men from HIV/AIDS, which is part of the text Mijopaalmc kept removing.

This source discusses all over why some gay men (or men who have sex with men in general) do not engage in anal sex, and mentions AIDS among the reasons; it also includes Bill Weintraub, but I know you don't feel like reading all that.

And I added two of these next three sources several hours ago (the Bill Weintraub interview was already there; I just moved it to support the text in question), also confirming that the reason some frot advocates do not engage in anal sex is due to diseases that may be acquired through the act, which is probably why Mijopaalmc hasn't yet removed the material again (as it further backs up the text he kept removing):

Here, it is made clear. It's a bit further down, where it mentions Bill Weintraub and his followers.

This source, which I only left in the article because it is an exclusive interview with Bill Weintraub, has Weintraub discussing health risks he associates with anal sex -- further down the article, but, again, I know you don't feel like reading or skimming over the article to locate what I mean there.

And then this, already there. So, basically, if Mijopaalmc removes the text again, he has even less of a valid reason to do so. There certainly was nothing valid in his removal before, since Bill Weintraub (his followers) and the one male were properly attributed to the references. Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, Ctjf83, regarding this edit, we included the link to Non-penetrative sex#Frottage to show the general act (including all types of couples) and because that's where the term "frot" is derived from. This is also why it is linked in the Concept and etymology section. But if it is felt that people generally know what frottage is, I understand the removal. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, good enough reason for me. I didn't realize Frot was penis to penis and frottage was any contact. CTJF83 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Well, that has been one of the main problems with this article -- the fact that a lot of gay men (and men who have sex with men in general) either simply refer to penis-to-penis rubbing as frottage or use it interchangeably with "frot." Thus, concerns have been raised regarding the notability of the term "frot," since it is mainly used by a specific community and not by gay men/MSMs in general. While the act of male-to-male genital rubbing is notable, whether or not the term "frot" is has been called into question. See Talk:Frot#Rename page "Frottage", Talk:Frot#Is the term "Frot" POV?), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frot first nomination). Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The top of P. 192 confirms what you added to the article, I don't see a problem. CTJF83 22:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Which source are you referring to specifically, though? Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Opps, thought I mentioned it [13] CTJF83 04:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I added that source with this edit. But my main point was that, before that, the first source, though not explicitly, pretty much confirms the same thing -- that frot advocates such as Bill Weintraub and his followers worry of diseases associated with anal sex (medical risks). It's why the source mentions how he remained HIV negative. The second source mentions how some prefer other sex acts to anal sex, partly because of diseases such as AIDS. "Other sex acts" to me includes frottage...even if not always direct penis-to-penis contact. It also mentions Bill Weintraub. I can see how that second source is "iffy" on backing up my statement, but the first was sufficient enough, I felt, and certainly sufficient enough to back up that quote from the man about saving the lives of gay and bisexual men. Either way, the line now has more sources, and I thank you for weighing in and deciding to help watch the article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel the first one was adequate (that's why I didn't mention it). I felt there was a little WP:OR jumping there. Flyer, I think you see that since you said, "the first source, though not explicitly, pretty much confirms the same thing"...those statements cause OR concerns. CTJF83 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that's why you didn't mention it or the second one. But I still feel they confirmed the statement about frot advocates and health risk concerns. In addition to stating how Weintraub, a frot advocate, remained HIV-negative, there is the quote from the male who identifies as bisexual. I at first considered him to be a frot advocate as well. I realized later that it isn't stated whether or not he engages in penis-to-penis rubbing, but it does make clear that he does not engage in anal sex because of health risks associated with it. This whole revert war matter started because Mijopaalmc said Weintraub was the only one who was advocating de-eroticizing anal sex in the article. I reverted because that is false, and the statement is actually attributed to the other male. Mijopaalmc also reverted on the grounds that "Neither one of the articles discuss sex with a condom as being too risky." That revert was no longer valid because I had already reworded the quote away from the line about condoms. Per the section right above, Mijopaalmc had a problem with the citations backing up the wording "that even with a condom, the objective medical risks of being anally penetrated outweigh the subjective pleasure." I reworded the line to something frot advocates and others who campaign against anal sex actually do state -- that part of the reason they and others do not engage in anal sex is because of the medical risks. He then kept removing the material again, not just the medical risks part, but the accurately attributed de-eroticizing part as well.

Other than that, the health risks concerns were/are already made known earlier in the Frot article, such as in the Preferences section; before I removed Weintraub's websites, it was pretty clear from those sources alone, how he feels about anal sex in relation to diseases. And the term "frot" emerged as a way to disparage gay males and MSMs away from what was perceived as the dangers of anal sex. Needless to say, I didn't (and still don't) understand Mijopaalmc's removals, except for when he removed the sources because they were wrongly attributed to the line "that even with a condom, the objective medical risks of being anally penetrated outweigh the subjective pleasure." That is the only valid removal I saw, which is why I attempted to fix it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ok, I'll have to wait for his/her comments. CTJF83 17:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I keep removing the articles from The Advocate and Out as citation for the first sentence in the second paragraph of the Debates section, because they simply do not support the claim for which they are cited. The original claim was:

Additionally, frot advocates feel that the medical risks of being anally penetrated are not worth the subjective pleasure of anal sex

and The Advocate and Out articles say respectively:

Perhaps most sensational among the new AIDS activists are those who campaign against anal sex. Bisexual blogger Jim Lynch describes it as "shit sex" and says the way to avoid the "supervirus" includes no longer depicting anal sex as erotic. "It's truly unfortunate that some folks perceived [me] to be antigay when nothing could be more pro-gay than keeping gay and bisexual men alive and healthy," Lynch says.

Bill Weintraub, who runs the Web site Man2ManAlliance.org, also encourages gay men to give up anal sex in favor of what he calls "frot," or frottage—rubbing bodies and genitals together. He remained HIV-negative without using condoms during his 13-year relationship with an HIV-positive man because they stuck to frottage, Weintraub says. He insists frottage is "hotter" because anal sex "cannot give you the same experience as direct genital-on-genital sex."[14]

Even more surprising may be the fact that those men still have fulfilling sex lives. Activist Bill Weintraub runs a site called HeroicHomosex.com that contains hundreds of messages from and articles about men who prefer frottage (a word of French derivation that means "rubbing") over anal sex. Weintraub writes that his online community "values equality and masculinity, and seeks sex that is prolonged and sensual." He calls for an end to what he sees as the "cultural domination of anal sex" among gay males. While his point of view may be extreme, at the heart of it is a simple message: Many men have very satisfying sex lives without engaging in anal intercourse.[15]

Neither one discusses the relative risk of frot and anal sex with a condom or the "subjective pleasure of anal sex". Now, Flyer22 did change make the statement more neutral by changing "subjective pleasure" to "practice", but neither one of the articles actually mentions the relative valuation of anal sex and frot with respect to their HIV transmission rates. The current version is also problematic in its portrayal of the information expressed in the article because it neglects to mention that "anal sex advocates" are also concerned with "the medical risks of being anally penetrated". In fact, the bulk of The Advocate is about how public health workers are becoming more aggressive in promoting safer sex to reduce the transmission of HIV through anal sex without a condom. Citing the articles as support for any of above statements is subtly inaccurate, and should not be allowed in the article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your original removals were based on the wording "that even with a condom, the objective medical risks of being anally penetrated outweigh the subjective pleasure" and that Weintraub was the only one de-eroticizing anal sex. And you kept removing the quote by the other male without any adequate reason whatsoever. I do feel that the two sources support the statement, but I will remove them from the statement since I can also see how including them could be considered interpretation. The current version is not problematic at all, in my view. It neglecting to mention that "anal sex advocates" are also concerned with "the medical risks of being anally penetrated" is something you could fix by adding that statement in the section yourself, with a reliable source attributed to it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I hestitate to get back into this fray, but I'd appreciate an answer to a very narrow question. The article now says: "In The Advocate, in 2005, one opponent of anal sex supported no longer depicting anal sex as erotic to help avoid the transmission of AIDS." Putting aside the awkward wording, Flyer, can you please tell me (1) who is the opponent and (2) what statement(s) in the Advocate article support the assertion? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The article cites blogger Jim Lynch as the source of the quote. Mijopaalmc (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If the wording is awkward, it can be fixed. If it is awkward, it became that way after nitpicking and my trying to find a good way to include it. As for your questions, the opponent does not have a Wikipedia article here, which is why I don't feel he is notable enough to be mentioned by name. True, Weintraub doesn't have a Wikipedia article either, but he is the most notable frot advocate, according to reliable sources. I also mention Joe Perez by name because he is an author who has written about these issues. As for supporting the assertion that "one opponent of anal sex supported no longer depicting anal sex as erotic to help avoid the transmission of AIDS," it is right above in this section of the discussion: Perhaps most sensational among the new AIDS activists are those who campaign against anal sex. Bisexual blogger Jim Lynch describes it as "shit sex" and says the way to avoid the "supervirus" includes no longer depicting anal sex as erotic. "It's truly unfortunate that some folks perceived [me] to be antigay when nothing could be more pro-gay than keeping gay and bisexual men alive and healthy," Lynch says. Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've reworded the sentence. Hopefully, it's better. Just so it's clear, though, my rewording doesn't mean I support inclusion of the material - it's essentially a copy edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits like these[16][17][18] are what I mean about Mijopaalmc's constant nitpicking and making things worse every time I fix up the article. No matter how much I fix up this article, he is never satisfied. Or he pretends to be satisfied and then finds something else to complain about the next week or next month later. There was a POV problem with the Debates section, which you complained about, and I recently balanced it out. Your changes, however, make the section lean back toward presenting the same POV you complained about earlier. Which is no doubt what you want so that you can complain some more about this article. Your insistance that "Repeating the claim about the the intimacy of frot give WP:UNDUE to frot" is absurd. The Preferences section is about opinions, and is of course going to include men preferring frot because they feel it is more intimate, or because of whatever other reason they prefer frot. Your "substantial edits" are always to hinder/damage the article, and you have not proved otherwise. I'm beyond tired of having to constantly alter and tweak this article due to one editor's viewpoints. I am the one making improvements to the article all the time, while Mijopaalmc complains and complains. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we disagree about what constitutes your "fixing the article", although it is telling that you couch any substantial edit I make as reversing your "fixes" to the article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I said "fixing up the article," which is what I did, according to three editors, by adding reliable sources, balancing things out, etc., etc., etc. You are the only editor who objects to my improvements, and every time, and it is about time you admit that it is due to your utter detest for this article. Your contributions show it enough. There was a POV problem with the Debates section, which you complained about, and I recently balanced it out. Your changes, however, make the section lean back toward presenting the same POV you complained about earlier. Which is no doubt what you want so that you can complain some more about this article. Your insistance that "Repeating the claim about the the intimacy of frot give WP:UNDUE to frot" is absurd. The Preferences section is about opinions, and is of course going to include men preferring frot because they feel it is more intimate, or because of whatever other reason they prefer frot. Your "substantial edits" are always to hinder/damage the article, and you have not proved otherwise. I have reported this matter at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Neutral point of view violation at Frot article. Let's see how well your argument holds up there. Come to think of it, you haven't even made a valid argument for those three edits and reverting me...other than throwing WP:UNDUE back at me. Which is silliness. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your self-righteousness astounds me, especially since have repeatedly refused to assume good faith, which is one of the admonition for participating on this talk page. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your constant nitpicking astounds me. And you have given me ample reason to not assume good faith in your involvement with this article, this recent stunt by you being a prime example. To say what you just did is an improvement or that I should assume good faith in it is laughable at best. The fact that you cannot even provide a valid argument for the changes speaks volumes. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:DR CTJF83 20:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This constant wrangling interferes with a cooperative discussion about content disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work. No one ever wants to be bothered with this article. That's why I asked for editors to help. And only one has thus far. Before that, I asked one other active editor, the one who awarded me a barnstar, to help too; he hasn't yet. The place I reported this most recent dispute should help, though. Flyer22 (talk)

Well, we've both dug in our heels really deep, so it is hard to admit that either of us could be wrong (as I just did in the section below). However, Flyer22's constant assumption of bad faith makes it nearly impossible to do anything constructive, because everything I do is considered an attack on the article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Which procedures do you suggest we try?

Everything you do is an attack on the article, from what I have seen. You just made the Debates section problematic once again!!! Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC and EAR haven't garnered very much interested or help. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:DR is next CTJF83 20:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is about neutral point of view, which is why I took the matter to that noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The ultimate dispute may be about neutrality, or it may be about other issues as well. However, as a separate issue, two editors are constantly battling each other. That issue may be resolved at WP:DR ("This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor.").--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

POV in the Preferences section

Let's start over. I am not trying to create or maintain a POV in the Preferences section. I moved the information about Bill Weintraub's opinions to the Debates section because his opinion are stated once again in that section. It was initially not my intent to remove the information about anal sex as, not because I thought (or still think) that it belongs in the Preferences section (it does not), but only because I was streamlining the Debates section, which contained a more detailed description of the "hotness" of frot.

I frankly don't see the relevance of the material discussing anal sex in the Preferences section. It is completely self-contained and does not discuss a preferences for anal sex over, just the motivations for MSM to engage in anal sex. If removing the material on anal sex from the Preferences section mitigates the POV issue, I support it. However, the repetition of an opinion in two different place does give undue weight to the opinion, so Bill Weintraub's opinions on frot belong in one section or the other, not both, especially since the two statements are just rewordings of one another. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you both summarizes in a few sentences what the issues are. I'm gonna be honest, I don't like reading as it is, and when I come in with paragraphs and paragraphs to read, usually of rambling or irrelevant material, I usually don't bother. CTJF83 20:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Some MSM practice a sex act that involves rubbing one's penis against various parts of his partner's body. Some MSM even prefer this act, which is most often called "frottage", to anal sex.

A subset of these MSM refer to the specific act of rubbing their penises together as "frot". They tend to justify their preference in that they perceive it to be more masculine than anal sex, which the denounce as leading to effeminacy, promiscuity and inevitably to death from AIDS.

It is not clear how large this subset is, yet the bulk of the Comparisons to anal sex subsection depends on their specific opinion on anal sex and frot. Mijopaalmc (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok...so the dispute is what exactly? CTJF83 21:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to Mijopaalmc: Fine. I will try to start over and work something out with you yet again. My response is this: There is going to be POV in the Preferences section. It is about people's opinions -- about why they engage in frot over anal sex, or the other way around. What is it with you and not understanding that these are opinions, not fact? To me, you are trying to create and maintain a POV in the Preferences section, because you removed the POV of some frot advocates preferring frot because they consider anal sex to be a health risk and find it degrading to the receptive partner. These are preferences, and not ones just expressed by Bill Weintraub. Removing Bill Weintraub's statement is one thing, but you removed two preferences for frot that others beside Bill Weintraub have for engaging in frot. Further, Bill Weintraub's opinion that frot is hotter or any other feeling he has about frot being better was not stated in two sections. The line "two genitals coming together by mingling, caressing, sliding" and rubbing as "sex" more than other forms of bodily pleasuring is not Weintraub's statement; it is someone else's statement. Similar opinion or not, all the reasons for why people engage in frot should be summarized in the Preferences section. So are you okay with adding back the brief mention of "health risks" and "degrading to the receptive partner" without mention of Weintraub?

There is relevance in discussing anal sex in the section to balance things out and to show why some gay men engage in anal sex, such as finding it to be "their version of intercourse." The anal sex information there should be cut down now that you have cut down the frot information. And the text about Weintraub and his followers that you moved to the Debates section should be removed to once again balance that section out. Not to mention, it is redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

How about we try and do something like 2 pro Frot 2 anti frot, 2 pro anal, and 2 anti anal...which pro frot would probably be anti anal, etc, and then everyone is happy we have a NPOV. CTJF83 21:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No-one that I am aware of is "anti-frot" at least in so far as "frot" can be described as the act of two me rubbing their penises together. What people object to is the "frot advocate" overt hostility to and denigration of anal sex based the same logic that has been used to stigmatize MSM, so I don't see how it makes sense to have an "anti-frot" viewpoint. Mijopaalmc (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well whatever...but you get the idea of being neutral, and equally representing all view points based on weight CTJF83 21:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And it is that neutrality I am trying to represent. Mijopaalmc, you still haven't answered my question. Are you okay with adding back the brief mention of "health risks" and "degrading to the receptive partner" to the Preferences section as two other reasons for people preferring to engage in frot...as long as there is no mention of Weintraub? Once we do that, we can cut down the reasons for engaging in anal sex as well; though we could go ahead and do that now.

I would say we should just combine both sections back under the lone title of Comparison to anal sex, but splitting the material was a compromise with an editor from earlier on (at #Thumbs up on the rewritten "frot vs. anal" section!) who wanted the word "debates" somewhere in the title. But if it is thought to be best to just combine both sections together, then let's do that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

For someone who claims to be the paragon of neutrality with respect to this article, you certainly don't pay attention to where you praise is coming from. Thorbert McGee is a frot advocate[19]. If you're going to criticize me for being steadfast in my convictions, maybe you should consider that his praise may not be the most neutral. Mijopaalmc (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

He isn't the only one who has "praised my edits." As for doing background checks on editors, I am not interested in doing so unless they are pedophiles trying to edit the Pedophilia article. Furthermore, he admitted on my talk page what sexual act he has a preference for. That doesn't mean he cannot tell good editing when he sees it -- adding reliable sources, balancing things out, etc., etc., etc. He has actually been pretty neutral in his edits regarding this article. Since you keep avoiding my question, I will go ahead and make the section singular again. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You can keep on arguing about neutrality if you like, but I want to get back to basics for a moment, which is the overall justification for this article. I've brought this up before at EAR, but I don't get anywhere. The article states: "The term "frot" was originally popularized by gay male activists who disparaged the practice of anal sex." I don't see any real support for that statement. Mijopaalmc above says something different (which you didn't dispute here): "Some MSM practice a sex act that involves rubbing one's penis against various parts of his partner's body. Some MSM even prefer this act, which is most often called "frottage", to anal sex. A subset of these MSM refer to the specific act of rubbing their penises together as "frot"." That seems to say that frot is just a shorthand term for frottage (which is pretty much what I think). So, why the article? Why couldn't any truly important information here simply be merged with Non-penetrative sex, which covers frottage?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is something that Bill Weintruab wrote on this talk page:

1. Outercourse: Frot is not outercourse. Frot is sexual intercourse, which Merriam-Webster's (1983) defines as "physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia." Frot is male-male sexual intercourse. That's both apt and accurate.
2. The purpose of my work is to move "men who have sex with men" away from anal and towards Frot: One reason is that I have no doubt that the next epidemic is on its way. You can picture gay men as tied to the railroad tracks of anal, and the next epidemic as the locomotive bearing furiously down upon them. We need to get them off those tracks ASAP.
3. To that end, and as someone who's lived through all 21 grisly years of "safer-sex," I can tell you that terms like "outercourse" and slogans like "on me not in me" do not work: People don't want outercourse. They don't want condoms. They want intercourse. That's why we stress, correctly, that Frot is mutually genital sex. Frot is male-male sexual intercourse.

He clearly defines "frot" as being exclusively genital-genital intercourse. However, as I stated before, I have not been able to locate any source not derived in some way from Bill Weintraub's work that uses "frot" in that way. Given that his stance is almost purely ideological, I don't understand how titling the article "Frot" doesn't present his POV. Mijopaalmc (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Weintraub's defnintion of frot:

Frot is the male-male erotic practice of aligning the erect penis of each partner so that the undersides of the penises are touching, and rubbing them together until orgasm. As such, it is the only m2m erotic practice which, like penile-vaginal sex, involves direct and mutual genital-genital contact. Consequently, Frot is highly and mutually pleasurable for both partners simultaneously. And because during and after orgasm, ejaculate is not contained within a bodily orifice such as the anus, rectum, or mouth, it is very low risk for HIV and a number of other STIs which are most commonly anally- or orally-vectored. In addition, since the partners stand or lie facing each other, Frot is a very connected and intimate practice both emotionally and spiritually. Frot facilitates full-body contact, and partners experience a heart-to-heart connection as well as a genital bond. Because European-Americans and African-Americans sometimes use different slang terms for the penis, Frot is known colloquially under a variety of names, including Cock To Cock, Dick2Dick, Bone on Bone, and Cockrub. It's also sometimes referred to as "Front" and "Frontalism." The term "Frot" itself was coined by Frot activist Bill Weintraub in October of 2000 in order to provide men with a race-neutral term for the activity, and to provide a substitute for the word "frottage," an ersatz French word which most sexologists use to refer to any sort of sexual body rubbing. Frot, by contrast, like the slang terms cock2cock and dick2dick, refers specifically to the rubbing of erect penis on erect penis. Readers who are over 18 and who wish to see a colloquial and adult explanation of Frot, intended for a mature audience, which includes graphic depictions of men having phallus against phallus sex, may click here. Please do not do so, however, if graphic depictions of sex will offend or upset you.[20]

It is even more restrictive than the definition provided in the lead paragraph, because it requires the penises to be on top on each other, not as they are in the Princeton Rub. Mijopaalmc (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Guys, we aren't getting anywhere. I don't even wanna read all that after my last post, becuase i'm 99% sure it is stuff that has already been argued to no consensus. CTJF83 23:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec - even though I know CT doesn't want to hear it) In my view, this article cannot be justified based on the opinion of a gay activist who isn't even necessarily notable in his own right. But even if he were, I would feel the same - it's not enough. The stuff about frottage itself, i.e., the Concept and etymology section, to the extent it is not duplicative, should be merged with the Non-penetrative sex article. The rest of it belongs in its own article if a debate about frottage vs. anal sex is sufficiently notable to justify an article. As presently constituted, the article makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, I believe Throbert McGee said something about the origin of the term "frot" being covered in this interview. "Why the article?" has already been brought up numerous times, as I stated to you. It exists because of sources such as this, this, this, and this. I'm not sure why you're asking me, "Why the article?" when, as I stated at Wikipedia:Editor assistance, Bill Weintraub... This has been the biggest issue with the article -- the fact that "frot" has a lot to do with him; the term, not the act of male-male frottage. The columnist of the Out magazine source you cited is not claiming to have coined "frot." Bill Weintraub is. If the term "frot" comes up, Bill Weintraub is there being interviewed...and by reliable sources, such as this and this. These reliable sources were missing before I added them, and everything he stated was only attributed to his own websites. But as can be seen from the sources, he has gotten some attention from the gay media. Also seen in those sources is his stance on anal sex, which is also attributed to the men who take part in his websites. This, and men who simply prefer frottage to anal sex, is why I state that the term "frot" is not just about the practice of frottage and has a lot to do with anal sex, and why Mijopaalmc tried to get the article moved or merged (see Talk:Frot#Rename page "Frottage" and Talk:Frot#Is the term "Frot" POV?). I have extensively agreed with Mijopaalmc that the term "frot" is not notable outside of Weintraub and his followers (see Talk:Frot#Terms/synonyms for Frot), but the practice of male to male genital rubbing is. This has been the main issue with the article all along, whether the article should even exist under the title of Frot. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frot first nomination).'

That is why. And why the article makes sense to enough people. If Mijopaalmc finally gets this article deleted, which is what he has wanted all along, I won't be crying over its loss. Except the wasted time I put into it, especially trying to appease/please him. I'll finally be free of it, and Mijopaalmc. Thanks again for diverting the attention back to the existence of this article, instead of how the content should be handled. You just gave Mijopaalmc a platform to once again bitch about it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, Flyer, unlike you, I'm not invested in any of this, and I don't see this as giving you or Mij a "platform". And, just so it's clear, I don't agree with just about anything you said above. However, in the interest of CT making some headway here (good luck), I'll bow out again.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh thanks Bbb....CTJF83 23:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No good deed ever goes unpunished. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong. Unlike Mijopaalmc, I am not obsessed with this article. Unlike Mijopaalmc, I have plenty of other articles tagged onto my user contributions. I simply like fixing up articles, and often edit sexuality topics. What I saw was an article that needed fixing up, at least with formatting and reliable sources, and that is what I did. I care not if you disagree "with just about anything" I stated above, and that you seem to agree with just about everything Mijopaalmc states. If you cannot recognize that Mijopaalmc violated WP:Neutral point of view with his most recent edits, then oh well. But about disagreeing with why this article exists? I listed facts as to why it exists...such as the deletion debate. Not my opinion. And it is pretty much the same thing Mijopaalmc stated to you anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The practice of male-male genital-genital rubbing is called "frottage" outside of the works that can be attributed to Bill Weintruab. That much is a fact.

Also, I don't want the article deleted, I just want the information appropriately title. If you can provide a source that cannot be attributed to Weintraub I will happily accept the article as it is currently titled, but continuing to insist that I have some nefarious plan to silence the news about frot is just further evidence of you bad faith issues. Mijopaalmc (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to you to accept the article or not. Just because you do not like the article does not mean you get to nitpick at it every time it is substantially fixed up. It is not up to me to choose a different article title. It is not fair to take it out on me. Read the deletion debate again if you want to know why this article remains titled Frot. I did not state that you have "some nefarious plan to silence the news about frot." I stated that you have an agenda, and I made that agenda clear in some of my arguments with you. You just admitted part of that agenda now. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "agenda" canard. It's only an "agenda" because you disagree with it. You said I want the article deleted, and that is simply not true. I don't want all, or even most, of the content removed. I just want it titled in a way that reflects the consensus of human knowledge. To that end, I have noted that "frot" is a slang term that occurs in reference to an online community the notability of which even you have question. The much more common term is "frottage", which, while it covers a much wider range of acts, occurs in a number of gay sex manuals and is the word used by safe sex educators.

You, however, continue to advocate a niche usage, which you have not bothered to verify beyond reference to the online community the notability of is questionable. If you present some independent attestation to the usage of frot, I will drop this argument, but so far all you have put forward accusations of bad faith. Mijopaalmc (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have expressed valid concerns about why I feel you have an agenda. For one, you are a single purpose account. And then there's the other stuff I stated. It's only "not an agenda" because you say so. And we've been over the deletion matter extensively. I clearly stated what merging will do to this article. Either way, a lot of it will be deleted. You don't see it as deleting, whatever. Stop dragging me back into past discussions that I'd rather not have with you again.

I'm not the one advocating anything. Per past linked discussions above, I agreed that the term "frot" is not notable, but that the act of male-to-male genital rubbing is, and stated that there is no other title to move this article to that can be backed up by reliable sources. Frottage is a dab page. All I have done is supply this article with various sources, while you have removed things, a lot of the times with no valid reason, constantly nitpicked (more nitpicking than when the article was in a very sad state) and complained, complained, complained. And now that I have combined the sections, I do not doubt that you will find something else to complain about. And it is clear that you will continue to be a hindrance to this article all because of its title and because you have a disliking for some of the information relayed by some frot advocates. For the last time, the article title is not up to me!!!! I am no frot advocate. I am a female Wikipedia editor who feels that if this article is going to exist under this title, it might as well be fixed up. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not a single purpose account, although yet another bad faith accusation is noted.

You are not neutral. You accused Bbb23 of giving me "a platform", when he mentioned that he had some of the same concerns about the titling of the article, further demonstrating bad faith against people with whom you disagree. If you continue the personal attacks, I will report you. Mijopaalmc (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what a single purpose account is? It is "...a user account or IP editor whose editing is broadly limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose." That's you. Nothing wrong with stating it.

I am neutral, and have compromised with you time and time again. But nothing ever satisfies you. And it is clear that as long as this article is titled "Frot," nothing ever will. Go ahead and report me, see how successful you are with that. Bbb23 didn't see my saying you have an agenda as much of an attack either. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not neutral; you cannot stand that someone else might actually agree with me, and, when he/she does, you attack them for whatever is the perceived slight du jour. You accused Bbb23 of giving me "a platform", instead of considering that his concerns may be valid. Therefore, you have taken a particular stance on the article, which destroy your neutrality.

You have continually show that you assume bad faith (both with me and Bbb23), which you are admonished not to do at the top of the page. Why don't you recognize that? Mijopaalmc (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am neutral because, unlike you, I am not obsessed with this damn article or its title. I am not pro-frot or pro-anal, or anywhere in between gay male issues. My concern is having this article reliably sourced, cleaned up, and neutral. My edits to it attest to that. My past comments attest to that. I cannot stand someone agreeing with you, you say? All three of us are in agreement about the article title. Except I don't view the title as POV, and we don't know if Bbb23 views it as POV. I did not attack Bbb23. You seriously need to redefine your definition of an attack. I stated that Bbb23 gave you a platform to once again bitch about the existence of this article...because that's what he did. You were right there bitching about it again. I did not state he did it intentionally. Due to his questioning about the article title, which diverted the attention away from the subject at hand, it gave you a platform to once again bitch about the article title. That is true! I have not assumed bad faith in Bbb23. It is you I have assumed bad faith in, and that will not change. You will not change my mind. You will not get me to apologize, and certainly not with the type of edits you made very recently. So stop trying. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there is way too much drama here for me to want to deal with it. Flyer, I have the same issues with a user who wants his way only and complains till he gets it. CTJF83 03:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you at least still look after it? It won't do any good to leave us two to it completely, as every other person/WikiProject seems to do. And sorry that you are dealing with pretty much the same at another article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think your edits are the best...we just need Mijopaalmc to accept that...CTJF83 03:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)