Talk:Sexual intercourse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

Undue weight: Legal text with regard to England and Wales, and other matters[edit]

I think that most, if not all, of the text below, from the subsection "Consent and sexual offenses" of the section "Ethical, religious, and legal views" doesn't really belong here, because it gives WP:UNDUE to the legal definition of "sexual intercourse" in England and Wales and to other legal definitions and legal cases, most of them in relation to the law in England and Wales. We should avoid focusing on a single jurisdiction like that. Most of it is also only tangential to the issue of consent (which is the title of the subsection). The text is this:

The expression "sexual intercourse" has been used as a term of art in England and Wales and New York State. In England and Wales, from its enactment to its repeal on the 1 May 2004,[170] section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 read:

Where, on the trial of any offence under this Act, it is necessary to prove sexual intercourse (whether natural or unnatural), it shall not be necessary to prove the completion of the intercourse by the emission of seed, but the intercourse shall be deemed complete upon proof of penetration only.


This expression refers to buggery, including both buggery with a person and buggery with an animal.[171] Zoophilia (bestiality) is sexual activity between humans and non-human animals or a preference for or fixation on such practice. People who practice zoophilia are known as zoophiles,[172] zoosexuals, or simply "zoos".[173] Zoophilia may also be known as zoosexuality.[173] Zoophilia is a paraphilia.[174][175][176][177] Sex with animals is not outlawed in some jurisdictions, but, in most countries, it is illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with crimes against nature.


According to cases decided on the meaning of the statutory definition of carnal knowledge under the Offences against the Person Act 1828, which was in identical terms to this definition, the slightest penetration was sufficient.[178] The book "Archbold" said that it "submitted" that this continued to be the law under the new enactment.[179]

For most definitions of rape, there is a broad "conceptualization of sex, including many kinds of sexual penetration (e.g., penile-vaginal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, anal intercourse, or penetration of the genitals or rectum by an object)".[169]

Continuing act

See Kaitamaki v R [1985] AC 147, [1984] 3 WLR 137, [1984] 2 All ER 435, 79 Cr App R 251, [1984] Crim LR 564, PC (decided under equivalent legislation in New Zealand).

Section 7(2) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 contained the following words: "In this Act . . . references to sexual intercourse shall be construed in accordance with section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 so far as it relates to natural intercourse (under which such intercourse is deemed complete on proof of penetration only)". The Act made provision, in relation to rape and related offences, for England and Wales, and for courts-martial elsewhere.

From 3 November 1994 to 1 May 2004, section 1(2)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (as substituted by section 142 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) referred to "sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal or anal)". This section created the offence of rape in England and Wales.

The penal code in New York State provides: § 130.00 Sex offenses; definitions of terms: 1. "Sexual intercourse" has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration, however slight.[180] Skydeepblue (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Skydeepblue. I figured that I'd eventually meet you at this article, considering that we have worked together at times at the Rape article and to a lesser extent at the Puberty article. Not to mention...that you sometimes pop up at articles I have WP:Watchlisted. For how the legal text that you dispute got added to the article, see Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 6#Legal term section. I pointed out then that the editor's text does not represent a WP:Worldwide view. He apparently has used headings created in that section to link to that section's text in other articles. I recently got into a disagreement with him at the Murder article talk page about his tendency to lend WP:Undue weight to British legal aspects. So, clearly, I don't mind a lot of the British legal material that you dispute being removed.
On a side note: As for this edit you made to the lead, I had virginity mentioned in the lead because, from what I have studied, it, especially female virginity, is a big aspect with regard to sexual intercourse. And because it is a significant topic that is addressed in the Etymology and definitions section. Because of those factors, I summarized that aspect in the lead...per WP:LEAD. It's also because of this that I added mention of virginity back to the lead, but without specific mention of virginity pledges (since mention of that is significantly less needed and is not discussed lower in the article). Notice that the virginity line you reworded was left mostly supported by sources discussing virginity. I'm not sure what you felt was unsourced in the lead, considering that those matters you reworded are sourced, and, per WP:LEAD, sources don't necessarily need to be in the lead if the lead's material is sourced lower in the article. I've sourced most of the things in the lead because the topic of sexual intercourse can be so contentious. Better sources are needed for parts of the Marriage and relationships section, however, with regard to religion. I also see that you used the wording "many parts of the world." I try to avoid using words such as "some" or "many," especially "some people" and "many people," on Wikipedia as much as possible...per WP:Weasel words. It's often that I use something like "various," "Often, people" or "People commonly" in their places, though using the words "some people" (or a variation of that, such as "some men") is more difficult to stay way from than using the words "many people." If sources support "some," "most," "majority," etc. (especially those exact words), then it's less of a problem to use those words. Going back to references really quick, I know that you often cite sources as bare URLs. But per WP:Bare URL, I hope that you don't mind if I ask that you don't use bare URLs in this article, as WP:Bare URL addresses the problems with doing so and I really do plan to take this article to WP:Good article status (though I have been slowly working toward that since 2011) and bare URLs are not accepted during the WP:Good article process. It's also best that we have a consistent reference style, per WP:CITEVAR. It would be nice getting this article to WP:Good article status with your help, or with the help of others, such as ‎AndyTheGrump...who also watches this article. If you need help with reference formatting, just let me know and I'll help out.
Also, I added on ": Legal text with regard to England and Wales" to the heading of this discussion section so that it's clearer what the section is about; that will also help locate the section once it's archived. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
(Here due to the new notification system - Flyer22 mentioned me above). I agree with Skydeepblue - the material discussing specific legal definitions of rape etc is undue. I'd suggest removing it entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Per above, no objection from me on removing it. The zoophilia (bestiality) part should be moved elsewhere in the Ethical, religious, and legal views section, though, considering that it is a general matter (and is also mentioned in the lead). With the exception of "buggery with a person and buggery with an animal," that bit wasn't added to that section by the editor who added most of the British law text. It was added by a sockpuppet (you remember him no doubt, Andy), and then I moved it. But if you'd rather we remove the sockpuppet's text, I'm fine with that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with keeping the part about virginity in the lede. I removed some parts about religion because they were a very rudimentary and mostly unsourced attempt to describe the views of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism. I know that the lede doesn't need to be sourced if it is a summary of other sourced material in the article, but this article lacks in sources when discussing the views of religion. This is a very complex issue, because there isn't one single view for a specific religion - there are huge differences between different sects of the same religion, and different religious authorities have differing views on the role, meaning, purpose etc of sexual intercourse (eg. not all Catholic leaders have the same views and interpretations of religious texts about sexual matters). Also, this is an article about sexual intercourse, not religion - so there isn't any need to detail specific views of each religion in the lede - a brief general mention of religion in the lede is fine.
In regard to zoophilia, a very brief mention is OK, but there is no need for any expanding.
I also think that, in regard to the health section, HIV/AIDS should feature more prominently, because it is a major global issue - detailed discussion on the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa (including prevention strategies) is appropriate, I think.Skydeepblue (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I see what you mean about mention of specific religions being in the lead, and I've never liked the vague "Hinduism and Buddhism views on sexuality have differing interpretations" line that was added in December 2011, but the parts that were there were sourced in the lead or lower in the article. That stated, I didn't add the religious text to the lead (except for when speaking of the fact that religious views can play a role in decisions about sexual intercourse or other sexual activity), though, per WP:LEAD, religious text should be there. I've watched others add religious text to the lead and lower body of the article over the years. I haven't added much about it because not only does religion hardly interest me (I'm athiest; was religious at age 12 and under), I don't know much about religion. That's why I've usually left that material to be expanded by others, and have generally only tweaked it. These days, I felt that I was going to have to clean up and expand religious text in this article myself since I'm usually the only one working on this article. But with you helping out with it, that may no longer be the case. I'll also eventually clean up any reference matters with regard to your additions if needed, per what I stated above about references (I use WP:Citation templates, and have been converting references in this article to that style).
I agree with you about the inclusion of zoophilia.
As for HIV/AIDS, there is an adequate amount of detail about it in the Risks subsection of the Health section. It's made clear there how dangerous HIV/AIDS is and how it has affected people, especially Africans, on a global scale. I'm not sure that it needs its own subsection as part of the Risks subsection, which is what I'm guessing you mean by "feature more prominently." For one, HIV/AIDS is under control a lot better than it used to be (for example, the treatment that exists for it that has made it significantly less likely that a person will die from it). I know that it is still a big problem in some parts of the world, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, but I feel that devoting a section to any one aspect of a certain part of the world with regard to it would be WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Then again, given the massive problem with HIV/AIDS in Africa, maybe it would not be. But I much rather prefer WP:Summary style for the Health effects section, like we currently do. I agree with having a paragraph about how HIV/AIDS affects Sub-Saharan Africa, but not a whole section dedicated to it.
Oh, and I added "other matters" on to the heading of this discussion section since we are now discussing other aspects that may be due or undue. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Another problem in the Risks subsection - text on medical issues sourced to the press (The Independent newspaper is not a reliable source for such issues):
The text:
"In 2006, The Independent newspaper reported that the biggest rise in sexually transmitted infections was in syphilis, which rose by more than 20%, while increases were also seen in cases of genital warts and herpes".Skydeepblue (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
In regard to HIV/AIDS - there is no need for a subsection on it, but in the "Risks" section there needs to be much more about it - while it is true that it can now be kept under control a lot better than it used to, millions of people in Africa (and some other places) do not have proper access to medication and proper knowledge about how it is transmitted/prevented; and in some places the situation is completely out of control (eg. prevalence rate for adults aged 15 to 49 is 26% in Swaziland [1]; 23.40% in Botswana [2]; 23.30% in Lesotho. [3] etc. There's also a problem with AIDS orphans. So these issues should be addressed.Skydeepblue (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I obviously agree that The Independent is generally not WP:MEDRS-compliant (I state "generally" because WP:MEDRS does note that use of news sources are occasionally permitted...under certain circumstances), and I have removed it. But at least it was specifically attributed with text to what the The Independent reported. We should find a better and more recent source than it to comment on genital warts and herpes. I don't see any other problem in that section, however, except for anything in there that is not sourced. I also agree with expanding that section with the HIV/AIDS material you mentioned, as long as we don't go overboard with it. A good outline for including HIV/AIDS information is to summarize some of what the lead of the HIV/AIDS article states, but with some extra additions (like the things you mentioned). As seen with the diff-link with regard to The Independent text/source, I also removed the British law text (there was a bit about New York State in there as well, as seen above in this discussion section). Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the legal definition, I think that you are going about this in completely the wrong way. I think that the correct approach is to spin off an article on "Sexual intercourse in English law" or to merge the material to the article "Rape in English law" or to use the material to begin a new article on "Definition of sexual intercourse" to include all jurisdictions and non-legal definitions. WP:UNDUE doesn't normally require you to delete anything. It normally requires you to add more information and to move stuff into daughter articles. That part of WP:UNDUE is a positive principle for inclusion.

As regards your comments above, I thought that most of what you said on Talk:Murder was complete nonsense. James500 (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to start another article, do so. This article is about sexual intercourse. It is not about the legal definitions of rape in different jurisdictions. And yes, WP:UNDUE is perfectly good grounds to delete material of only marginal relevance at best. This is what is known as editorial judgement, and something that Wikipedia contributors are expected to exercise when necessary. Articles are not dumping-grounds for everything vaguely related to the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
James500, as seen above, it was not my idea to remove the text you added. But as for your statements: Considering that you just happened to pop up at this article, either you have been watching this article all this time or you've been keeping track of my Wikipedia contributions. Considering that you are someone who seems to barely understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, someone who doesn't seem to know what creating a WP:Good or WP:Featured article entails, yes, of course, you would think that most of what I stated at the Murder talk page was "complete nonsense." And let me be clear about you bringing your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior to this article, cut it out. This is not the page to continue our disagreements with regard to what was stated on the Murder talk page.
As for spinout articles, you should read WP:Content forking and WP:SPINOUT. Spinout articles should only be created when needed, and should not be created just to cover material that was rejected in the main article. As definitions of sexual intercourse are very important to understanding the topic of sexual intercourse, they should be in this article (summarized and with due weight, of course), just as definitions of rape are in the Rape article, definitions of virginity are in the Virginity article, definitions of female genital mutilation are in the Female genital mutilation article, definitions of vegetarianism are in the Vegetarianism article, definitions of pedophilia are in the Pedophilia article, definitions of malnutrition are in the Malnutrition article, definitions of assisted reproductive technology are in the Assisted reproductive technology article, and so on. Furthermore, per WP:NOT A DICTIONARY, a Wikipedia article should be more than just definitions; of course, that is challenged when a Wikipedia article is about a word or is about how a matter varies between laws. Either way, the British law text you had in this article should either be summarized in this article, or merged to the Rape in English law or Laws regarding rape article. It's not like your British law text is simply about sexual intercourse; it's about legal matters regarding sexual intercourse, specifically British legal matters regarding sexual intercourse, called rape or sexual assault. And we already have articles, such as Rape, that exist to cover that. Therefore, your text should clearly be merged with the Rape in English law or Laws regarding rape article if it is not to be summarized in the Sexual intercourse article. Or it should be summarized in this article and expanded on in one of the aforementioned existing articles, with a Wikilink directing readers to the article that goes in-depth on that aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
And yet I see that you needlessly created a spinout article, despite what I stated above about doing so: Sexual intercourse in English law. You having done so is exactly what I mean about you barely understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines; it's either an example of that or you not wanting to follow something I suggested (no matter that you suggested a merge with the Rape in English law article). Why you feel that things such as rape or sexual intercourse in general need their own Wikipedia articles when it comes to English law is beyond me. But whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I don't have time to respond to the whole of the wall of text that you have written all that I am going to say is that this article is on my watchlist and that the subject matter of the article that I have just created satisfies WP:GNG by a very, very, very wide margin and its creation was absolutely necessary. James500 (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Negating the first paragraph of my response to you above, you calling my explaining to you policies and guidelines in one paragraph "the whole of the wall of text," as well you citing WP:GNG (a.k.a. WP:Notability) and stating that the creation of the Sexual intercourse in English law article was "absolutely necessary," further shows your WP:COMPETENCE issues. Or, more so, your "I just want to oppose Flyer22, possibly piss her off" tendency. Just because a topic is notable does not mean that it should have a Wikipedia article. The content forking and spinout article guidelines I cited above are very clear. There is no valid justification whatsoever for you having created the Sexual intercourse in English law article. All you have done is created yet another destination for readers to travel to, when they could have easily read about that information in one of the aforementioned existing articles that it should have been put in. The fact that you suggested that the text be merged with the Rape in English law article further shows that its article creation was not "absolutely necessary." And since I am not interested in carrying on a debate with you at this article, like I did at the Murder article, consider all of that the response that covers anything else you have to state to me on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have explained on the talk page of the article that I created that I have come to the conclusion that the merger that I previously suggested will not work and that there are no other suitable targets.

I don't feel that I can respond further to your inordinately long posts.James500 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Refer to my responses to you above. And your note about supposed differences, clearly minor and/or trivial differences, means nothing when it comes to WP:Content forking and WP:Spinout. In fact, WP:Content forking is very clear about minor and/or trivial, or even major, differences. Generally keep it all in one article. "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Again, it is clear on when splitting content is valid. Your rationale fails that. And as is clear above, there are more than one or two articles you could have validly put that text in. So stop justifying that article creation to me; I've read enough of your rationale, and I don't want see or read any more of it. As for my "inordinately long posts," it is not my problem that your attention span cannot handle one, or two or more hefty paragraphs...despite such communication often taking place and being needed on Wikipedia. Now good day to you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no content fork. James500 (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what a content fork is if you believe that. What you have created very clearly falls under WP:Content forking. You need to read that page; all of it. And your need to get the last word all the time is silly; Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The article that I wrote deals with two subjects not one. The other subject is English law. There are many articles whose title is of the form X in English law. The vast majority were created by people other than me. There I a clear precedent. Even if I was wrong about this, see WP:IAR. What you propose would kill this encyclopedia.

As far as I can see, you are the one who is determined to have the last word. I was merely trying to explain my views.James500 (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, refer to my responses to you above. And, no, what I proposed (and the merge you originally proposed) would not kill the encyclopedia. That type of thing has not killed the encyclopedia yet. And if it were capable of doing so, those guidelines would not exist. What you have done by creating these needless spinout articles is no doubt annoy many of our readers; our readers have weighed in many times before about having to travel to multiple articles for information that they could have read about it one article. The main reason that WP:Content forking and WP:Spinout exist is for our readers. As for the last word... No, I have implied that we move on from this discussion more than once; I have even told you "good day." But just like at the Murder talk page, and in other discussions we have had, it is you who just has to have the last word. After all, it is not my post that is last at the Murder talk page with regard to the aforementioned discussion we had there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason that we have many of our policies and guidelines is because deletionists have nothing better to do with their time because they are not creating content. Not that I agree with your interpretation anyway. The idea of dealing with subjects as big as sexual intercourse on the one hand, and English law on the other, in a single article, is preposterous. And trying to do that all the time would certainly kill the encyclopedia. James500 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC) I do not believe that most of our readers want to read articles that consist of vague and innaccurate generalisations and which have extensive omissions. I do not believe that most of our editors want to write such articles (hence the condition of articles like Murder). And I think that is what your single article approach is bound to produce. James500 (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your logic is... Sigh. I'm not surprised that your editing is significantly more about yourself than it is about our readers. And before you state that my editing is significantly more about myself than it is about our readers, as your borrowed comeback line, that assertion would be the opposite of what many editors of this site have stated (especially with regard to my editing sexuality articles). For example, I have no big interest in asexuality. I've worked on the Asexuality article mostly so that readers get accurate information on that topic. Working on the asexuality topic has included me knocking back a mess of a spin-off article. If the existence of that spin-off article were needed, and if it had been well-made, I would not have knocked it back. But it's not even needed because there is currently sparse research on asexuality and therefore the Asexuality article is not big (WP:SIZE). There is not only one article focusing on the topic of sexual intercourse; that's the point. You had legitimate merging options. WP:Ignore all rules is employed only sparingly...and for cases when the rule is clearly preventing the person from "improving or maintaining" Wikipedia. The aforementioned guidelines are clear about when there should and should not be separate articles. Your "Sexual intercourse in English law" matter is not one of those cases; you somehow disagree with that, and believe that validly including that text in one of the aforementioned existing articles is a "vague and inaccurate" generalization and/or somehow has "extensive omissions." I know, I know. As for what our readers think, you can obviously believe what you want. But what they stated, such as now with Wikipedia:Article feedback, is either what they believe or they are lying. This is likely my last reply to you on this matter. Since you want the last word so much, go ahead and have it. If Skydeepblue and I continue the discussion we were having in this section, I will just ignore your latest posts about merging, about me, about deletionists, about the aforementioned guidelines and anything else that has to do with what you and I were discussing above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll only take the following point as I can't be bothered to respond to the rest:

you somehow disagree with that, and believe that validly including that text in one of the aforementioned existing articles is a "vague and inaccurate" generalization and/or somehow has "extensive omissions."

That is not what I said to you. That is not even close to what I said to you. What I was suggesting was that an article that is as broad as this one usually ends up consisting of vague and innaccurate generalizations. I was suggesting that the breadth of this article inherently impairs its usefulness because it can't be anything more than a brief introduction to the subject.

And you did seem to be suggesting that there should only be one article on the subject of sexual intercourse. James500 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite a serious issue: Erect[edit]

In relation to this undo, I would suggest to take into consideration the retain of the removed content (in the current or in other linguistic form). Justification: how it is possible "insertion and thrusting of a male's penis into a female's vagina" without the prior penis erection? Has someone tried to do such trick? Or maybe is it in the animal world? Let's be honest. --Rewa (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Rewa. No, that is not quite "a serious issue." I undid it because not only was it grammatically awkward (as you suggested someone undo it if it were; it should have been "a male's erect penis" if you were going to add "erect"), but also because "erect" is limiting. The penis is able to be inserted into the vagina without being erect, and some have done that...such as in the case of rape (including women having raped men, usually when the man is asleep or with drugs to make him incapacitated or cause him to sleep). And this article, while mostly about humans because the term sexual intercourse is usually reserved for humans (with copulation or mating used more so for non-human animals) and there is the Animal sexual behaviour article for non-human coitus and other non-human sexual behavior, is not only about humans. Because it makes for a more comprehensive article, a lot of Wikipedia articles, such as Cancer, have at least one section about their topic in non-human animals while pointing readers to a main article for that aspect...if there is one. The first line of this article is about animals in general (including humans), while the fourth paragraph of the lead summarizes the topic with regard to non-human animals. There are non-human animals who engage in coitus before the penis is erect. See the In non-human animals section of the Erection article, for example. Some sources describe coitus, or other forms of sexual penetration that involve the penis, without stating that the penis is erect; others sources do state erect; this can be seen with the sources in the lead.
I don't mind too much using erect for the first sentence, and, if we were to use it for the lead of this article, I'd do the same with regard to the Anal sex article (especially because, due to how tight the anal sphincters are, I don't see how a non-erect penis could be inserted into the anus in the case of human sexual activity), but I do find use of it limiting for the first line of this article for the reasons I mentioned in this section. Most sources on this topic, especially dictionary definitions, simply state "insertion of the penis into the vagina" (or some variation of that) and continue from there. If it's an encyclopedia or other book discussing the matter, such as this one from the lead, then it usually does mention erection. But erection is not always mentioned right from the start. This Encyclopædia Britannica source, which used to be used for the lead, is an example; the specific aspects, including erection, are mentioned lower, which is what this Wikipedia article currently does. The Encyclopædia Britannica source implies that erection is not needed by stating, "Erection changes the normally soft and flaccid organ to one of greater size and rigidity to permit easier penetration into the reproductive tract of the female." Notice "easier." Flyer22 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, I added on "Erect" to the heading of this discussion section so that it's clearer what the section is about; that will also help locate the section once it's archived. Flyer22 (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind much if "usually when erect" were used, especially in parentheses, so that it read "insertion of a male's penis (usually when erect)." After all, it is usually erect in the case of sexual intercourse...with regard to humans and non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
So in theory only, in practice it may be variously. Thanks for the quick and comprehensive explanation of the matters. I think that in Britannica they still need a little work on the subject... --Rewa (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm responding again just to state that I went ahead and took "usually when erect" out of parentheses because it's actually less distracting without being placed in parentheses. Either way, I'm obviously fine with the addition. And it is indeed more accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You're right, actually these parentheses could wrongly imply that this is phrase of a lower rank, the commas are fairly neutral. --Rewa (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to change the main picture?[edit]

I'm sure the artist is very talented in composition and coloring, but basic anatomy is not his strongest suit. On most women, the vulva is located down between the legs, not on the front of the pubic area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

IP, I think you mean "vagina" instead of "vulva," since the front of the pubic area is a part of the vulva. But, yes, we can change the main picture. I also considered the aforementioned anatomy to be inaccurate when I traded File:Édouard-Henri Avril (13).jpg for the current lead image that you dispute, File:In The Barn.jpg. I still do, of course. As shown in this edit, I traded the images because the now disputed one "more clearly demonstrates the act, even as a thumbnail" and "there are enough Édouard-Henri Avril images in the article." When looking on WP:Commons for images on this topic, seen here, I did not find a better replacement image (for File:Édouard-Henri Avril (13).jpg) that displays the missionary position, and the act of the penis entering the vagina clearly, and that is compliant with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS. By "compliant" in this case, I mean a drawn or painted image instead of a real-life image; our readers take more offense to real-life images of sex acts than they do to drawn or painted images of sex acts. I saw this missionary position image, currently shown as the lead image in the Missionary position article. But I didn't use that for this article because I didn't want to be redundant by having that image as the lead image in this article as well. Plus, it is another Édouard-Henri Avril image and is not the typical missionary position. One might ask why use a missionary position as the lead image. My answer to that is that the missionary position is the most common human sex position, by far, as supported by two WP:Reliable sources in the caption for the current image. That sourced caption also played a role in my looking for such an image. For the lead image, it doesn't seem right to use a sex position that isn't as widely relatable. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree the anatomy in File:In The Barn.jpg is unacceptably off, and also that a missionary position image should be used per the prevalence reported in the sourcing. Should be easy to find a better image that meets with guidelines, hopefully? Zad68 03:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that File:In The Barn.jpg is a poor choice because of the incorrect anatomy. I consider File:Paul Avril - Les Sonnetts Luxurieux (1892) de Pietro Aretino, 2.jpg to be far better. I think that it is well within the range of a "typical" missionary position. I would not oppose a better illustration if one can be found, but feel that a reasonable degree of anatomical accuracy plus a frank encyclopedic depiction of the act is more important than avoiding using "too many" images by a single artist, or avoiding duplication of an image from another article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Cullen328. Did you stumble onto this discussion? Or have you been watching this article for some time? As for "the typical missionary position," see the variations in the Missionary position article. What I meant by "the typical missionary position" is the basic missionary position. I don't doubt that the position where the woman's legs are almost above a man's shoulders is a typical missionary position (by that, I mean "common"); I doubt that it is the typical one (most common). But, yeah, I am fine with using that as the lead image for this article, though I prefer an illustration of the basic position (especially one that clearly shows penile penetration of the vagina). What do you think of this particular matter, Zad? As for "too many" images by a single artist, I was trying to address a similar matter that happened elsewhere on Wikipedia; see here, here, here and here, especially that last diff-link (though, despite what I stated in that third edit summary, it likely is not a misconception that it is more common for lesbians to perform cunnilingus than it is for heterosexual couples to perform it). Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I didn't stumble onto the discussion, Flyer22 and have had the article on my watch list for a long time. I don't say much if anything here because I don't want to be a pest and most of the books I own on the subject are 25 to 30 years old. I consider the article very important, have followed the topic with great interest and enthusiasm for 44 years, and have my own opinions on the article's strengths and weaknesses. I think that overall, you and the other editors who contribute here are doing a good job overall. For some reason, this specific issue motivated me to comment. Thanks for asking. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to have Cullen helping out here! Flyer, I support the proposed image change, File:Paul Avril - Les Sonnetts Luxurieux (1892) de Pietro Aretino, 2.jpg is better than File:In The Barn.jpg. Although the Avril is anatomically better, overall the image itself is not great, and would support looking for something even better as time permits. Zad68 13:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I traded out the images, adding File:Paul Avril - Les Sonnetts Luxurieux (1892) de Pietro Aretino, 2.jpg in place of the one that was there. Again, the reason I'd changed the longstanding image, File:Édouard-Henri Avril (13).jpg, is because I was cutting back on the use of Avril's art in the article so that one artist does not dominate so thoroughly and because it does not show the actual contact between the genitals. Someone wanting to add a real-life sex image could therefore reasonably argue that the image is not the "equally suitable alternative" that WP:GRATUITOUS speaks of. I'm not too opposed to adding it back as the main image, especially since it is the more traditional missionary position, but the more explicit one that is up there now helps satisfy those who would rather that a real-life sex image be added and it is therefore more compliant with WP:GRATUITOUS. Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Flyer for making the image change you did, it's definitely an improvement and stays within the guidelines, as discussed. The amount of use of one particular artist's images is of a far secondary concern. Zad68 14:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem. And agreed. Fixed the name as well. Flyer22 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Why not go for a sober and modern depiction of the act instead of this rather amusing 19th century artwork.--Avril1975 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Avril1975, I was just about to comment on your talk page about your tendency to add explicit, real-life sexual images to articles with no regard for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS; those guidelines, what I stated above about them, is why we should not go for your image style. And I see nothing amusing about the WP:Consensus lead image artwork or the rest of the ones in the article. I am still in the process of leaving a comment on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
How bout that: (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The correct link is File:Wiki-missionary.png. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and that image does not show penetration; this goes back to what I stated in my "13:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)" post above. Of course I have looked over all the images. The one that is up there now, agreed on by three editors thus far, is the best one. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, that is a good point indeed. Any objections against this particular image?--Avril1975 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Avril1975 (and don't think I haven't noticed the similarity between your username and the artist Avril mentioned above, LOL), what problem do you have with the lead image, other than it not being a real-life sex image? The lead image that has been agreed upon here is the better lead image, in my opinion, and it is more realistic/anatomical-looking than your latest proposed image (to my right). And I see no need/appropriate place for any more sexual images in the article, especially of an act that is already well illustrated in the article. By "appropriate place," I mean that the article already has images of different sex acts in their relevant (appropriate places), and putting sexual images in the Prevalence, Safe sex and contraception, Health effects or Romantic relationships sections seem out of place (unless it's the picture of a condom or the birth control pill being placed in the Safe sex and contraception section). And the only sexual image I feel that should go in the Reproduction, reproductive methods and pregnancy section is an image of the act of reproduction, the type of image that I explained here. We should not be littering the article with images just because we can, likely creating WP:Sandwiching problems; we should include them where relevant, and I feel that we should not be too redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean to imply that I have the plan of 'littering the article'? All I did was to make a suggestion of how to make an improvement - by substituting a mediocre picture with a superior one. How is that littering.--Avril1975 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I was not suggesting that you have an intention to "litt[er] the article with images just because we can, likely creating WP:Sandwiching problems"; I was explaining why I don't see your latest suggestion as a good lead image or needed for any other part of the article; for example, I stated that "I see no need/appropriate place for any more sexual images in the article" and then went on from there, explaining why I feel that way. And I obviously don't see any of your suggestions as superior to the current aforementioned consensus lead image, and I already explained why that is. Flyer22 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Include that some men experience Postorgasmic Illness Syndrome after ejaculation[edit]

I suggest to include the following paragraph in section 1.4 Duration and sexual difficulties:

After ejaculation, some men experience physical and cognitive symptoms characterized as Postorgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS).[1] Many men who suffer from this condition reduce the frequency of sexual intercourse to a minimum, while some avoid it completely.[2]

KalleVomDach (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Levin, Roy J. “Physiology of Orgasm.” In Cancer and Sexual Health, edited by John P. Mulhall, Luca Incrocci, Irwin Goldstein, and Ray Rosen, 35–49. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, 2011.
  2. ^ Waldinger, Marcel D., Marcus M.H.M. Meinardi, Aeilko H. Zwinderman, and Dave H. Schweitzer. “Postorgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS) in 45 Dutch Caucasian Males: Clinical Characteristics and Evidence for an Immunogenic Pathogenesis (Part 1).” The Journal of Sexual Medicine 8, no. 4 (2011): 1164–1170. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02166.x.

Change request[edit]

I think that in the first sentence, "sexual pleasure" should be changed to "sexual stimulation". Sexual stimulation is usually for the purpose of pleasure, though, so this is debatable. Mackatackastewart (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mackatackastewart, I think it's best to use "sexual pleasure" since that's clearer as to what is intended in this case (as also indicated by the sources). If sexual intercourse is not for reproduction, then sexual intercourse is usually for the purpose of sexual pleasure. Reproduction is already addressed in the lead. And as for sexual stimulation, like sexual intercourse, the exceptions to "sexual stimulation is for sexual pleasure" (unless using it as a form of comfort that is not necessarily about the sexual pleasure aspect) are reproduction and rape. Reproduction, like I already implied, is a form of sexual stimulation since the sex organs are sexually stimulated during the act and since sexual pleasure usually accompanies reproduction through sexual intercourse for the male (I stated "for the male," because, like the lower body of the article notes, sexual pleasure from sexual intercourse for females is more complicated). As for rape, it is debated among researchers as to whether or not it is about sexual pleasure or power, or both. Certainly, rapists have cited all of those things (one or more) for their motivation to force sexual intercourse on someone. Rape is also covered lower in the lead. We didn't link "sexual pleasure" because it was a WP:Disambiguation page (and, before that, time and again it redirected to the wrong article and/or to an article that is already linked in the Sexual intercourse article). It should have been redirected to the Sexual stimulation article, since sexual stimulation, at least among humans and some other primates, is usually for the purpose of pleasure. Humans are the WP:Primary topic for sexual stimulation and sexual pleasure, and the Sexual stimulation article has a WP:Hatnote at the top of it to direct readers to the topic of sexual stimulation specifically among non-human animals. So I redirected the Sexual pleasure disambiguation page to the Sexual stimulation article minutes ago, and then WP:Pipelinked it in the lead (the first sentence). Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Flyer22. Request cheerfully withdrawn. Mackatackastewart (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome, Mackatackastewart. Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Avril showing "missionary"?[edit]

I’m having problems with “missionary position”. There is no talk at its article, plenty of refs, none really helped.

Maybe the origin is unclear, but the Pacific islanders were referring to Europeans, correct? Wouldn’t an actual missionary be the strictest example?

Personal knowledge of one culture: in the 1960’s and ‘70’s the missionary position indicated basic sex, no fun, just procreation. Raising her legs would be fun, none of that. That is how many of us used the term. Legs lying flat.

Whatever Kinsey mistook, it was later taken as an insult, only a missionary would have sex that dull when it could be so fun.

I was just wondering why the Avril painting is labeled as “missionary”, to some of us her smile indicates she is having fun. It is an atomically clear (also hot) painting, but why is it labeled as “missionary”? That term, generally an insult, isn’t really needed on the first image of the article, is it? Sammy D III (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sammy D III, the current lead image is one of Avril's missionary position images. Though I argued in the #Is there a way to change the main picture? section above that it isn't "the typical missionary position," it is one of the various missionary positions, as indicated by the Missionary position article and various WP:Reliable sources; that's why it's labeled missionary position in this and the Missionary position article. Whether Avril meant it as "missionary position," one does not know (unless he described it that way in some document still available to the world), but, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, we have a certain amount of liberty when it comes to captions. As for "missionary position" being an insult, yes, it is sometimes taken as an insult, but that is mostly when referring to it being the only kind of position a person uses to engage in sexual activity (sometimes referred to as vanilla sex); otherwise, it is the most popular sex position among humans, and is a perfectly fun sex position to many humans and seemingly to some other animals, as indicated by WP:Reliable sources supporting that information. We decided on a missionary position for the first image of this article, per what is stated in the "Is there a way to change the main picture?" discussion; our reasoning is that since this sex position is the most popular sex position among humans, it is therefore a sex position that almost every human culture can relate to. However, like I wondered in that aforementioned discussion, I don't think that the "legs up" variant of the missionary position, which we are currently using, is as popular a missionary position as the "legs down" variations, or the variation where the partner wraps her legs around the other partner's waist (which can be characterized as "legs down" or "legs up"). Still, we decided on the current image because not only is it a missionary position, but it clearly shows the penis penetrating the vagina and therefore better illustrates the topic than the images that don't show it clearly or as clearly. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I tried to get through that stuff, plus both articles. I personally think the Avril image is great, belongs right there. My only question is should that great sex be labeled “missionary”, with its plain vanilla flat legs connection? Is that “meaning dull sex” thinking obsolete? Even if it is accurate today, should that specific word be used in that one caption? Anyway, I brought it up, thanks for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
If that's the most common term applied to it, yep, that's the term we will use. If over time the consensus term for the act changes in reliable sources, we will reflect that at that time, but we're not the place such changes will start. Zad68 23:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Sammy D III, like I stated, the missionary position is very popular, the most popular human sex position (even for rape), and has variations; the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources discussing it indicate that it is popular mostly because it is experienced as pleasurable -- the face-to-face, often maximum skin-to-skin contact bonding aspects in addition to the genital pleasure received -- rather than because it is the expected sex position because of some religious belief or something similar. In other words, it's a sex position that is great sex to many people. Whether or not the people in the main image are having great sex, however, can be argued as subjective. That the terms missionary or missionary position sometimes mean "dull sex," more commonly in the Western world than other parts of the world, does not take away from the aforementioned positive aspects. The term missionary position is associated with positivity far more than it is with negativity, especially since it has variations and not just the "legs down" or "legs flat" variation. I don't think it's usual for the partner on the bottom to have his or her legs flat when engaging in the missionary position anyway; not only does that indicate no lower body movement on the part of the bottom partner (unless moving the pelvis while keeping the legs flat), it is not the optimal way to achieve good or great sexual stimulation for the bottom partner. Either way, per what I've stated above in this section, I don't see anything wrong with labeling the image a "missionary position" or using the term missionary position in this article. In fact, given the popularity of this sex position, not only should it be mentioned in this article, I believe it should be mentioned right up there where readers will initially see it. It seemed better to me to mention it in the lead image caption than in the lead, so that's what I did; and I still agree with that decision. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Sammy D III (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Actual Pictures[edit]

There are actual pictures on Wikimedia Commons, so why are there just paintings here? --Sex important cuz it makes babies (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Judging by you signing your username on your "first post" above, with two dashes in front of it as well, I'm sure that you know. You are not new to editing this site. But just in case you want to continue to feign ignorance, see the #Is there a way to change the main picture? discussion above. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
And editing an Islamic topic, while focused on grammar, and then a sexual topic right afterward is also not new (not that I'm yet 100% sure just what account you edited under before). I know all about WP:Don't bite the newbies, but, again, you are not a WP:Newbie, and it's best to go ahead and get that out of the way right now. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)