Talk:Sexual practices between men

Oral sex

There is a section on anal sex and non,-penetrative sex; I feel like we need a section on oral sex as well. Prcc27 (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

BDSM

Can we remove the BDSM section, I don't think there is enough WP:WEIGHT to keep that section? Prcc27 (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

From Section 1.2, Paragraph 2, change

 MSM may use sex toys. According to an online survey of over 25,000 men who self-report a homosexual or bisexual orientation, 49.8% have ever used vibrators.

to

 MSM may use sex toys. According to an online survey of 25,294 men who self-report a homosexual or bisexual orientation, 49.8% have used vibrators.

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Trans-inclusivity

@Prcc27: totally fine bringing this to the talk page, since I do know this is a major edit, but I do really think this page needs to be a bit more trans male-inclusive. The article is about gay sexual practices between males, so including a brief section about sexual behaviors between trans and cis men seems both necessary and appropriate for an encyclopedic article about sex between men. If this were an article about gay sexual practices exclusively between cisgender men, then the lack of trans representation might make more sense. As it stands, the absence of any mention of trans men feels like a major omission, especially since all reliable sources describe trans men who are attracted to other men as queer or gay. If there are gay trans men, it's common sense that there's also gay trans sex.

Regarding images, I agree that there is nothing wrong per se with the one already present for oral sex, but it’s really a bit obscured and hard to tell what’s going on. There's not much in the image but shadow? If I had no idea what gay oral sex entailed, I wouldn’t learn anything from that image. The current images of anal and non-penetrative sex are super helpful and useful, but we don’t have any similar animations on Commons depicting oral sex between men (although there is actually one Commons image illustrating the 69 position). Maybe another image might be found that’s more educational but also less visually graphic? Best, Louisianajones1978 (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this warrants a whole section due to the WP:WEIGHT concerns brought up. So perhaps it would be better to add a sentence or two on the matter. If we do add trans men to this article, the Lesbian sexual practices page should also include trans woman to be consistent. It's worth noting that even though your edit was trans inclusive, there was nothing about trans man on trans man sex, (which would perhaps be an even bigger WEIGHT issue). I'm ok with replacing the oral photo with the 69 photo you just shared. However, I would prefer a photo that does not depict mutual oral, because I would assume that 69 is less common. Prcc27 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Trans men are already included in this page because trans men can do all the same sex acts detailed here. The article does not distinguish between cisgender and transgender men, and it shouldn't. The idea that they just have to be specifically mentioned seems to be patronizing. The WP:BIAS essay does not supersede WP:NPOV and what it says about due weight, nor does it supersede WP:NOR. Personal (OR) views about what constitutes "inclusivity" likewise do not overrule it. Sources about this topic overwhelmingly do not discuss penis-in-vagina sex (PIV) or include it under this classification. Indeed, likely the vast majority of trans men who have sex with men do not engage in PIV because it would exacerbate their dysphoria. What sources were conjured up for this consisted of anecdotes. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Hm. Well, I can honestly say I've never once in my life seen research to back up a statement such as "the vast majority of trans men who have sex with men do not engage in PIV because it would exacerbate their dysphoria." Seems maybe more like unfounded conjecture than evidence-based statement? Also unsure about your statement, "Sources about this topic overwhelmingly do not discuss penis-in-vagina sex," because most research regarding cis/trans gay sex actually does mention "front door" (or PIV) sex,12 3 which is definitely not included on this page. A CTRL-F search on any of these studies will show more than a dozen places where the word "vagina" is used. There's enough secondary and tertiary material on the topic at this point for it to be discussed in this article. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Those are all primary sources and are specifically about transgender sexuality. What's more, while they may be comprehensive in mentioning all sex acts, I don't see where they comment on prevalence. Regardless, my point regarding sources about the topic of gay male sexual practices stands. Those overwhemingly do not discuss PIV. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

We have statistics about the prevalence of trans men's identification as gay,1 as well as secondary literature on HIV-risk (with bibliography) describing frontal gay sex practices between trans and cis men.2 So, we can definitely say two things without SYNTH: 1) Many trans men identify as non-heterosexual 2) Trans men and cis men have PIV sex (which in this instance is a gay sexual practice between two males, relevant and within the scope of this page). Briefly mentioning either or both of these things should not be controversial on an article about gay sex. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: I think a sentence or two would suffice, and I definitely agree with the addition of trans women to the Lesbian sexual practices page for consistency. It's also super interesting that you brought up trans man on trans man sex, because I also really did think about the importance of including that too. Was definitely concerned about issues regarding WEIGHT (and also couldn't find much research about it), which was ultimately why I didn't include it. As for images, I think you're right about 69 being less common. There's also this option, but I'm also not sure if there's a clear enough visualization there of what occurs during oral sex? Definitely curious to hear your thoughts. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That photo does not clearly show what a fellatio typically looks like, so to me, that photo would seem like adding a photo with an actual penis showing, for the sake of having a photo with an actual penis in it. While the current pic also does not clearly show what fellatio looks like, I feel like it fits better because you can easily infer what is going on and what a fellatio would look like from their pose. Prcc27 (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Totally fair! I'm still wondering if the 69 photograph might be more informative and bibliographic than one where a person has to rely on inference to understand it. Again, if I knew little or nothing about oral sex, I wouldn't have anything to base such an inference on. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)