Talk:Frot

Improving this article

A few months ago, I took it upon myself to rewrite some parts of this article, and especially the first several grafs, with an eye to addressing the concerns of the curmudgeonly Mr. Weintraub AND his Wiki critics.

In full disclosure: I'm a great admirer of Weintraub for the work he's done at the expense of making himself a pariah -- note that he's been an out-and-proud gay dude since before Stonewall -- yet I also think that he tends to shoot himself in the foot sometimes by being just a bit of an asshole.

Anyway, I've just recently returned to this article and am editing my own edits based on constructive feedback I've gotten from gay friends and straight friends to whom I've referred it. I will freely admit that there are more weasel words ("many gay men sometimes argue...", etc.) than desirable, but in my defense I will point out that "frot" as discussed in this article is a relatively new conceptual framing for a practice that some guys have done since cavemen days. Not only that, but it's a concept that (because of cultural inertia and political silliness, IMO) remains woefully neglected and under-discussed in mainstream gay media both online and off -- hence the difficulty in finding linkable sources.

All that said, I do welcome feedback and edits on the current version.Throbert McGee (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be linkable. It helps make them easier to check, but ultimately sources just need to be reliable. Books, magazines and newspapers (including the gay press) would be good sources to document the controversy. Even if sources are not neutral, it would be OK to say that Smith advocates X while Doe argues against it that... etc., with their positions sourced from published works (not blogs). Asking your friends is just Original Research. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh

I clicked that link from the bonobo page having no idea what it was and did not expect to see a badly drawn picture of two human males rubbing their dicks together. I've got no problem with gay sex, but putting that on wikipedia on the main page of a word that isn't widely known just seems stupid. 153.106.4.94 (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked. The only link from the Bonobo article is at the end of the sentence Bonobo males frequently engage in various forms of male-male genital behavior, which is perceived by some scientists as being sexual (frot). No idea what it was? At least now you know. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

comment

Rather than just revert again, which I will do even if it only lasts two seconds I thought I would also point you to wikipedia's articles on human sexual behavior and sexual orientation where your viewpoint on behavior vs orientation would be perfectly relevant, appropriate, and on-topic. What your issue with the links and basic safer sex info is, I can't guess. It wasn't my idea to discuss sexual safety of any particular act in this article, but its there and demands further comment if its to stay there. The other articles are, largely to show that this topic isn't solely discussed by your organization, I understand that they talk about frottage, but they also discuss frot. This is not your personal website and neither you or your group are entitled to exclusive representation to the expense of other, basically non-conflicting points of view. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy NPOV

RfC

This article may be better off as a transwiki to Wikitionary. It doesn't look good when a term is only five years old and its originator is a major contributor to the article. It appears to have gained acceptance among some gay men. How much acceptance is hard to determine. I tried the Google test and discovered "frot" is also a technical computing term and a fairly common French surname. How is this entry encyclopedic rather than a dictionarydefinition? Durova 21:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill Weintraub

I must say I'm amused.

At a time when Wikipedia is under attack for entries which are inaccurate and slanderous, I speak about my work under my own name.

And I provide a "user biography" so that Wikipedia editors can verify my statements.

For doing this, I'm called a string of slanderous names -- by people whose only identifiers are a string of numbers in an IP address.

Profiles in courage guys.

Then RfC -- whoever that is -- has a problem because not only is my work signed, but it's "only five years old."

Actually six if we factor in Hyacinthine Love -- which you should.

I have to wonder: If Karl Marx showed up to define communism for Wiki in 1840, would it have been too recent?

In the topsy turvy world of Wiki, it's bad for the author of a contemporary work to sign his work.

But fine if people hiding behind IP addresses slander him repeatedly.

Great.

Then RfC is shocked to discover via Google that there are other uses for the word Frot.

Why?

There are other people named Marx -- you know, Harpo, Groucho, Chico.

There can't be more than one entry?

Give me a break.

(For the record, I coined Frot literally years before Catherine Frot had a PR machine cranking out those releases that are popping up on Google.)

In my view, Wikipedia is a fraud perpetrated upon the public.

I coined the term Frot and I created the Frot Movement.

Which is receiving press.

And which is WIDELY used among gay AND BI men who practice penile-penile.

And I've been watching the Wiki entry to keep it ACCURATE.

Which it is.

So far, the changes I've seen to the entry are clearly coming from people who have, to put it politely, a pro-anal bias.

But hey, you don't think Frot belongs here anyway.

Fine.

If it was up to me, there'd be no mention of Frot on Wikipedia.

Because like I say, Wiki's a fraud.

I sign my work.

If I'm wrong I own the mistake.

If I'm right -- I own that too.

But anyone can come on here and say anything about anybody under cover of the net -- and you'll claim it's as valid as Britannica.

It's not.

Britannica's articles are signed.

Yours are NOT.

Except when they are and you see that as a problem.

Regarding some of these other issues from nameless person at top of thread:

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.

4. Risk.

There's never been a documented case of HIV transmission through frot.

By contrast, there've been 65 million cases of HIV / AIDS, some iatrogenic and some due to IV drug use, but the overwhelming majority of them attributable to anal / vaginal sex.

What portion is anal?

We don't know, but Halperin's work

Halperin, DT, Shiboski, SC, Palefsky, JM, and Padian, N. (2002) High level of HIV infection from anal intercourse: a neglected risk factor in heterosexual AIDS prevention. Poster presentation at the 2002 XIV International AIDS Conference in Barcelona.

tells us that anal is a far more efficient vector than vaginal.

Specifically, 10 to 20 times more efficient.

And that anal is more common among heterosexuals in the third world than previously believed:

Halperin, DT. (1999, December). Heterosexual anal intercourse: prevalence, cultural factors, and HIV infection and other health risks, part I. AIDS Patient Care 13 (12):717-730.

While according to Dr. Stephen Goldstone of GayHealth.com, "anal is the highest risk sex act that men who have sex with men can perform."

Why does he say that?

Because the literature on anal transmission of HIV among gay and other men who have sex with men (MSM) is extensive.

Here's a sampling:

• Buchbinder SP, Douglas JMJ, McKirnan DJ, et al. Feasibility of human immunodeficiency virus vaccine trials in homosexual men in the United States: risk behavior, seroincidence, and willingness to participate. J Infect Dis. 1996;174:954-961.

• Coates RA, Calzavara LM, Read SE, et al. Risk factors for HIV infection in male sexual contacts of men with AIDS or an AIDS-related condition. Am J Epidemiol. 1988;128:729-739.

• Darrow WW, Echenberg DF, Jaffe HW, et al. Risk factors for human

immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in homosexual men. Am J Public Health. 1987;77:479-483.

• van Griensven GJ, Tielman RA, Goudsmit J, et al. Risk factors and

prevalence of HIV antibodies in homosexual men in the Netherlands. Am J Epidemiol. 1987;125:1048-1057

• Melbye M, Biggar RJ, Ebbesen P, et al. Seroepidemiology of HTLV-III antibody in Danish homosexual men: prevalence, transmission, and

disease outcome. BMJ. 1984;289:573-575

• Ostrow DG, DiFranceisco WJ, Chmiel JS, et al. A case-control study of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 seroconversion and risk-related behaviors in the Chicago MACS/CCS Cohort, 1984-1992. Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. Coping and Change Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;142:875-883.

• Seage GRR, Mayer KH, Horsburgh CRJ, et al. The relation between nitrite inhalants, unprotected receptive anal intercourse, and the risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:1-11.

• Schechter MT, Boyko WJ, Douglas B, et al. The Vancouver Lymphadenopathy-AIDS Study: 6. HIV seroconversion in a cohort of homosexual men. CMAJ. 1986;135:1355-1360.

• Vittinghoff E, Douglas J, Judson F, et al. Per-contact risk of human immunodeficiency virus transmission between male sexual partners. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150:306-311.

Typical is Buchbinder et al J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Volume 39, Number 1, May 1 2005, who state: "Many studies have demonstrated that receptive anal sex is most strongly associated with prevalent and incident HIV infection in MSM and carries the highest per-contact risk of acquiring HIV. ... and should be targeted in prevention strategies for MSM."

What those who question the safety of frot are doing is presenting hypothetical possibilities of an almost infinite remoteness against a huge, known, proven and present danger -- anal penetration.

Regarding other STI -- Haldrik's formulation "many times safer" is accurate.

It's difficult to say more than that.

Most "safer sex" people will tell you that STI risk from Frot is negligible -- see for example this discussion from Jeffrey Klausner of SF DPH on gay.com.

I've done Frot for 34 years, not just with my partner who was poz and eventually died of AIDS, but with many other men who perished in the epidemic, and who certainly carried pathogens like HPV and herpes.

Yet I've NEVER had an STD.

That's what most Frot men report.

I know that's inconvenient for those "men into anal" who want to believe that all sex is as fraught with risk as anal penetration.

It is NOT.

There are vast differences in risk between Frot and anal.

That's the truth.

5. Finally -- "neutral point of view"

Frot v anal is about the politics of sex -- the governance of desire.

Such issues do not lend themselves to neutrality.

The best you can do is be openly partisan, and, like me, SIGN YOUR NAME.

I've had five years of ad hom attacks from people hiding behind hotmail accounts and IP addresses.

And predictably, they're already here on Wiki -- pretending to be friends of NPOV.

No.

These are anti-Frot, pro-anal, partisans.

In hiding.

Fact: The anatomy and physiology of the anus and rectum are such that they are extraordinarily vulnerable when penetrated.

Until anal is displaced from its central role in gay male life, gay men will remain at terrible risk.

Bill Weintraub

Anecdotal STI transmission [comment not by Bill Weintraub]

I have a close friend who - without any doubt - contracted penile gonorrhea from frot or oral. The other partner did not ejaculate but had a visible discharge. There was no penile penetration of the anus and this person never engaged in anal sex. This requires statistical evidence but a major problem in this kind kind of research is separating out behaviors - many people engage in all kinds of sexual acts and do not always self-report accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.131.102.6 (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

from "The IP address"

It doesn't matter what people want to hear, you can carry on you work at your own site. Wikipedia is supposed to provide as close to a neutral point of view as possible. Not a good moral point of view, nor a bad destructie point of view, but neutral. The article as I edited it contained an external link to your site, an in text link and a mention of your name. Most people in sex education will say that abrasions, open cuts and semen entering the urethra are to be avoided during any sex, we could, of course simply not discuss the safety/risk of male genito-genital sex specifically if its so controversial. I understand you protectiveness of your term but you are not the sole authority on male-male gg sex, if you prefer you could ask another member to write the article under another name (i.e. Frication_(sex) or Princeton Rub and you could write a subheading describing you your group and your views, or the word frot could simply be avoided.

I wrote nothing about anal sex, I see no need to mention it unless you wish to describe you organization. I wrote nothing about outercourse between men, only heterosexual outercourse. I wrote nothing about sexual orientation, the words gay and bi do not appear in my edits of the page. If you have a problem with my wording please feel free to adjust it. But if you wan't your say on those other topics, please go over to those articles where your comments will be on topic and appropriate.

---

Bill Weintraub

1. Do you have any documented proof of HIV transmission during Frot?

No, you do not, because if you did, you would have said so.

I have been in touch over the last six years with literally tens of thousands of Frot men.

NONE of them have HIV.

These include many men like myself who had passionate long-term sexual relationships with guys who died of AIDS.

We're all negative.

Which is not surprising.

HIV is a persnickety pathogen.

It requires very specific conditions to infect.

Can you provide any proof of the open wound theory?

I'm not talking about a man placing his penis in an open wound and purposefully ejaculating into it.

That's a bizarre, bug-chasing, scenario and it is not fair to ask us to answer for it.

What I'm talking about is ejaculate flying through the air or flowing down skin and entering a wound.

Can you provide any proof that that's ever resulted in seroconversion?

No.

Rough, tough guys whom we may assume have abrasions on their hands masturbate each other to orgasm all the time, and get ejaculate on each other's hands -- and they do NOT get HIV.

I repeat what I said: You are presenting hypothetical possibilities of an almost infinite remoteness against a huge, known, proven and present danger -- anal penetration.

And that is sickening to me -- literally.

As someone who lost his lover and more than 200 friends to HIV -- it is sickening.

2. Also sickening to me is that I'm having this discussion with an IP address.

Because what this is -- is a star-chamber proceeding.

Nameless faceless people, of whom I and anyone else reading this know nothing -- are making the rules and accusing me.

That should be repellant to any person of decency and good sense.

I am a real person, with a verifiable history, and I'm being in effect put on trial and dictated to by people of whom WE KNOW NOTHING.

I know nothing and the reader knows nothing.

That is wrong, it strikes at the heart of a democratic system, and if the people running Wikipedia do not understand that -- they have a moral blindspot the size of a black hole.

It's appalling.

For example, are you a "safer-sex educator?"

I've been very critical of the "safer-sex" establishment.

Because under that establishment, our MSM HIV infection rates keep rising.

You could be someone from within that establishment whom I've criticized by name -- like Tom Coates.

And who's taking this opportunity to get even.

Far-fetched?

No.

The reason free people demand the right to confront their accusers is so that things like this do not happen.

But Wikipedia doesn't care.

It permits this monstrous and unjust process to go forward.

3. And to top it off, you propose that someone else post for me.

So that my ideas are not under my name.

NO.

That's repugnant to me and again should be to any person of good sense.

I own my work.

I'm not just talking copyright.

I'm talking morally.

That for me is a fundamental moral precept.

If I created it, it's mine, I take responsibility for it.

What my life has been about -- for more than three decades -- is telling the truth about men who have sex with men.

And on a higher plain, men who love men.

And that means including telling the truth about me -- being out, and open, and owning what I say and who I am.

I will not participate in a charade.

I've never done that.

There's something VERY wrong here.

No accountability.

IP address, I think -- I'm not sure -- you're the person who slandered me.

But you don't apologize do you?

Why?

Because you don't have to.

It's the Klan -- we'll put on hoods and go beat up and terrorize and kill and no one will know who we are.

Bill Weintraub

---

Bill Weintraub - the importance of a topic does not exempt the article or its editors from Wikipedia policies. In particular I'd like to draw both editors' attention to Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Other relevant policies include:

• Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
• Wikipedia:Five pillars
• Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages
• Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines

Durova 17:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

"Durova" -- the same things I said apply to you.

Have you no shame?

Bill Weintraub

---

Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. By coming here you agree to its rules and you agree to have your content edited. If you aren't comfortable with that then there are plenty of other places where you can retain more control over your content.

Right now there are several problems associated with this article. Some of them have to do with the article itself and some of them have to do with associated user conduct. I like to be supportive of new editors. If you'd like to assume good faith then we can proceed and be productive. Durova 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Bill Weintraub

Hi Durova

First a word to IP Address, who said, "you are not the sole authority on male-male gg sex..."

I don't know of any others.

I have a colleague -- Chuck Tarver -- and I am going to, if allowed by the powers that be, add an article of his to the entry:

• Fighting the Conformity That Kills

But Chuck has other interests.

I by contrast have spent six years on Frot, I've been in contact with a huge number of Frot men, and I've collected more than 2,000 internet "oral histories" and statements from men into Frot.

And I've published seven times.

So when it comes to Frot, so far as I know, I'm it.

There are, by the way, indeed many things we (myself and Chuck) don't know which we'd like to know:

• how many gay-identified men don't do anal?

• how many gay and bi and other MSM do Frot?

• why -- why do they choose Frot; and how do they resist the incessant pressure and coercion to do anal?

We've asked people like Coates to look at issues like those, and he won't.

(Tom Coates, who used to be head of the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies (CAPS) at UCSF, and is now at UCLA, is widely regarded as the architect of AIDS prevention programs in the US, and has a lot to say about what gets funded.)

Durova:

1. It's difficult for me to assume good faith when you're using an internet pseudonym.

Because I don't know what biases you bring to this work.

Eric Newton, in his op-ed "Wicked truths about Wikipedia show weakness of online encyclopedia" posted January 11 2006 on the Sun-Sentinel website

• [1]

said:

"I would not call my holiday trip though the utopian, anonymous society a satisfying one. Wikipedia would be a better place if all users registered. Jimmy Wales has decreed those writing original entries for his free encyclopedia must be identified. Let's name the editors, too. That would help give us the "fair and open" encounter John Milton wrote about so long ago. Only in such a battle, Milton cautioned us, would truth prevail."

I agree with Mr. Newton.

"Let's name the editors, too," says Mr Newton, who, as the article relates, had problems with one of your editors.

Durova, can you tell me what's wrong with a "fair and open" encounter?

Wouldn't that be the case at Britannica, say?

Wouldn't the writer know the name of the editor he or she is dealing with?

And what expertise, if any, the editor brings to the task.

2. This article, at least in its present form, did not originate with me.

As I said earlier, I didn't want a Wiki entry because our work is very controversial, and my experience with message boards is that good faith is the last thing you can assume.

Nevertheless, sometime in December, I believe, someone using the internet pseudonym "Haldrik" or something like it contacted me and said he'd done something here.

So I took a look.

I edited the entry for grammar and style -- he purports to live in a foreign country and presumably is not a native English speaker.

And corrected a few errors.

But basically I changed very little.

I thought he did a good job of covering all the bases in short, summary fashion.

3. You say "we can proceed and be productive."

I'm willing to entertain what you have to suggest.

You can write me here or at bill@man2manalliance.org

I'll be busy most of today -- I can't promise that I'll get back to you before tomorrow.

Bill Weintraub

---

I'm going to go over some things point by point. I'm not an administrator, just an editor with a pretty high edit count responding to RfC. Check my user history: I'm politically neutral.

1. Encyclopedic value: the strongest thing in this entry's favor is the public health matter of safe sex. This needs to be verifiable. Cite any scientific or medical studies that measure HIV or STD infection rates against this practice.

2. Outside sources: besides scientific studies, cite press reports (magazines, newspapers, etc.) that discuss this in relationship to sexual practices among gay men. If this has become part of safer sex instructions, cite that too.

3. Cautions: Wikipedia has policies against original research and self-promotion, and neologisms. There may be ways for this article to conform with these policies. All external links belong at the bottom of the page in standard Wikipedia format. The tone of the article should be neutral and encyclopedic. Address the neologism issue by citing literature that quotes the new term, and by citing published references to the practice from before this term was invented. Downplay any personal involvement.

4. Consider alternatives: if there isn't enough third party material to support this as a separate article, then consider merging the content with a larger article. The current title "Frot" would redirect searches to the larger article. Another possibility would be a transwiki to Wikitionary, a sister project to Wikipedia.

5. Summary: in its current form this article would be a legitimate candidate for deletion. I'd like to see it corrected and retained, if that's possible. Keeping a positive and cooperative relationship with other editors is one step toward making that happen.

Regards, Durova 15:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What I ment is that no one is the sole authority on a sex act, there is no official ambassador of cunnelingus or inventor of masturbation, you yourself (directed at Bill Weintraub) say on your site that frottage was common when you came out. I would say that male gg sex deserves an article just as much as anal sex, tribadism, sexual intercourse, oral sex, or mutual masturbation. I simply think it should be structured along the same lines, seperate discussion for homosexulas and heterosuals if necessary but no needless "it doesn't make you gay!" disclaimers (and in return the words gay and bi could be avoided as well in favor of "between men" MSM ect.) some basic discussion of safety from more than one viewpoint with aknowlagement of disagreements, and links to more than one web domain.

-The IP Adresss 1:11 ET 1/15/06

All of that looks reasonable to me. My suggestion is to proceed. Keep as much of the current content as is valid for encyclopedic presentation. If another revert war begins, do your best to discuss it on talk. Proceed to mediation if necessary. It looks like both of you have some good things to contribute to this article. Best wishes, Durova 18:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No one coined the word "frot" any more than they coined the word "sex". I prefer "frot" or "frottage" as my primary mode of sexual expression, but that doesn't mean that it is completely safe nor necessarily the most pleasurable, nor the most masculine mode of sexual expression between men. And the reason why I prefer anonymity when addressing this subject, is to avoid ad nauseum diatribes and attacks from self-styled, self rightous, "authorities" on the subject. (Anonymous)

Frot POV (frot=male-male genital sex ONLY)

I have been really slow in typing up an explanation of my edits for which I apologize.

First of all, I have not been able to find very many attestations of frot meaning "specifically [...] male-male genital sex" which does not directly or indirectly reference Bill Weintraub's sites. Mr, Weintraub himself claims to have coined the term; however, a brief look through the Oxford English Dictionary demonstrates that the word has been in the English language since at least 1320, and that all Mr. Weintraub did was to coin a explicitly sexual definiton and narrow its lexical range so that it was not completely redundant with and did not carry the negative connotations of frottage. The one seemingly independent attestation comes from the Urban Dictionary a site which allows its members to post defintions to words, causing the some definitions to be idiosyncratic or even racist (e.g., Swede) or homophobic (e.g., brokeback). The lack of independent attestion for the defintion of the word frot seems to imply the defintion may in fact be in and of itself POV, because it does not stand alone as a defintion of a word but actually forms a integral part of the philosophy espoused by Bill Weintraub on his various sites (which includes a denigration of anal sex, effeminacy, and gay men who practice them). Frot in this context serves as the True and Only Way to have sex; all else is just degrading to one's masculinity because being penetrated turns one to a "pseudo-woman" as one is "obviously" treating one's anus like a vagina (for more in depth analyses see a debate that I engaged in with Bill and several of his supporters, or, if you want something a little less self-promotional, several blog entries 1 23 4). There has been nothing published in academia about the frot movement so all of what is known is based upon opinions posted on the web and and editorials published in the print media by Mr. Weintruab.

While there is very little independent attestation of the definition frot, there is plenty of indenpendent examples of frottage being used as a neutral term to describe mutual non-penetrative genital sex, occuring in many diferent sex manuals (e.g., The Joy of Sex, The New Joy of Sex, The Joy of Gay Sex, etc.). Therefore I propose that the articles on frot, frotteurism, and tribadism be combined in to an article on non-penetrative forms of sex, or some other NPOV terminology, such as Frottage (sex act). It is only within the milieu of Mr. Weintraub's sites that the term frottage a particularly negative connotation; however, I do suggest that the current title of the article be changed because of the associations of frotteurism with the paraphilia. Mijopaalmc 03:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if the current word we use for Princeton style happened to be invented by the head of the US Nazi party it would still be relevant, Bill Weintraub may have ideas that you disagree with but frot is currently the most well known term for GG sex between human men. Yes, there is little written on frot, but that reflects a heterosexist POV in the broader culture, heterosexuals do not frot, and do not define themselves by not frotting, therefore its not worth mentioning. Yes the word frot is often used by people with a strong POV, but its still a word thats used and can be neutrally, mechanically described in an artcle. We have an article on coitus, which is nothing more thatn a heterosexual form of sexual penetration, why not articles on tribadism and frot, which are homosexual forms of frottage? I would support a frot and tribadism/frottage merger only if there were a coitus and anal/sexual penetration merger as well. I am going to put back the citations, simply as examples of use (even if there not of the highest quality they show that people are using the word) but I wont remove the merger recommendation. The IP Address 12:18 Feb 1 2005

Sexual politics of frot

I reverted the Sexual politics of frot section back into the article. Please discuss concerns in Talk before making massive deletions. The author of the linked site is hardly the only gay person involved in an ideological avoidance of anal sex. For example, a number of conservative religious (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) organizations accept homosexuality while perceiving anal sex (specifically!) as religiously taboo. Much of the Hellenistic world subscribed to a similar sexual "political" ideology, and no doubt the modern religious ideology likely derives from the Hellenistic notions. On a related point, the bonobo primates are the only animals on earth that engage in every form of sex that the human primates engage in ... except they dont have anal sex. Why dont bonobos have anal sex? Perhaps anal sex isnt a biological drive among humans, but only a learned habit based on gender-assumptions? Moreover modern homosexual humans grow up internalizing the behaviors of their heteosexual parents, who have a cultural monopoly on raising children. The culture has historically used violence against gays who parent children, thus denying children with social awareness of homosexual rolemodels. Who knows what being "naturally" gay really means? If society says only women are allowed to have sex with men, why wouldnt male children learn to become unnatural "females" in order to satisfy their sex drive. Gay identity is just in its nascent formative stage. Who knows what being gay will mean 100 years from now? Etc. Etc. These are extremely important questions.

People dont need to agree with the linked website to acknowledge that it touches on a number of issues of consequence. For example, I disagree with the website on one point. Let me explain. I feel very strongly that "gender" is more-or-less unrelated to "orientation". For example, I met a women, who was born biologically male but her "soul" (for lack of a better word) was female. Nevertheless she was attracted to women only. Even with her male anatomy she felt like a Lesbian trapped in a man's body. She had her sex-reassignment operation and she became a true Lesbian. She never regretted her decision. (Interestingly, she is one of the few women in the US who is legally married to another women, because she married the woman while she was still anatomically male.) Anyway. Sex, gender and orientation are separate. It's like flipping I-Ching coins to see all the permuations of human sexuality. That's not even counting people who are androgynous, and truly neither male nor female, or rather both male and female. And so on. There really are males with feminine gender who are attracted to males with masculine gender. And they should be that way, because for them that's who they really are. And it's healthy for them. (And so on.) When the "politics of frot" demonizes these innocent "feminized fag" humans, the "politics of frot" is wrong! Very wrong. Just because some male-oriented males dont feel feminine, doesnt mean they should attack those who do. Humans are diverse. The "frot movement" needs more nuance.

Anyway. I think this whole subject matter and everything related to it is extremely important, and I'd rather see contributors adding to the discussion than deleting the discussion. Peace. --Haldrik 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

". For example, a number of conservative religious (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) organizations accept homosexuality while perceiving anal sex (specifically!) as religiously taboo."

that would be part of the sexual politics of anal sex not frot

R:ather it's the politicization of frot-vs-anal into the gender politics of male-vs-female. It belongs here because the most people who discuss frot as a distinctive form of sex are precisely the ones who juxtapose it against anal sex. The very concept emerged from this polemic. It has to be discussed. It is important. --Haldrik 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Much of the Hellenistic world subscribed to a similar sexual "political" ideology, and no doubt the modern religious ideology likely derives from the Hellenistic notions. " but that has nothing to do with penile penile frot

Frot is understood as licit sex. --Haldrik 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Why dont bonobos have anal sex? Perhaps anal sex isnt a biological drive among humans, but only a learned habit based on gender-assumptions?" again you're talking about anal sex, not frot

It's part of the discourse about what aspects of sex are "nature" (frot?) and what are "nurture" (anal?). It's part of the polemic that defines (structurally) the social meaning and relevance of frot. The polemic is notable. --Haldrik 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"People dont need to agree with the linked website to acknowledge that it touches on a number of issues of consequence." its already linked as a refernce in the first paragraph, one link is plenty.

128.192.81.41 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again. If you dont like the POV, I'd rather see you rework it, or add a second POV to rebutt it. Censorship should be avoided. --Haldrik 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the Politics of Frot back in. However, this time I described the notable elements. --Haldrik 03:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

""Much of the Hellenistic world subscribed to a similar sexual "political" ideology, and no doubt the modern religious ideology likely derives from the Hellenistic notions. " but that has nothing to do with penile penile frot

Frot is understood as licit sex. --Haldrik 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)"

you don't even bring this up in the article nor have you cited any particular source for it

"It's part of the discourse about what aspects of sex are "nature" (frot?) and what are "nurture" (anal?). "

which might make a fine addition to the human sexuality article, but theres not need for in depth discussion in any one given sexual act article,

What you're discussing is not a social movement its a website (which is just as much about anal sex as frot so it doesn't rightly go here), some websites have wikipedia articles, yahoo freerepublic turnleft youtube just move it over there and describe in as much detail pro and con as you like, but there's been a standing agreement that this article would stick to describing the act itself not websites partially devoted to it. 128.192.81.41 21:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The act of frot includes a concept, and that concept is notable. --Haldrik 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That sentance makes no sense to me. Could you explain what you mean 128.192.81.41 17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Potentially, the gender language seems to even reinforce archaic patriarchal structures to subordinate the anal "submissive females" who are out of power under the frot "dominant males" who are in power."

1. uncited 2.Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

"A central task of the frot-vs-anal discourse is to redefine the gender connotations of sex. Frot is to shift out of a heterosexual rubric, where frot is "false" sex being used as foreplay for "real" sex, which is penetrative vaginal sex, which is only "mimicked" by anal sex. Purposefully, frot is to shift into an exclusively homosexual rubric, where frot is the "real" sex, in and of itself, because it is the means of intimate cooperation with other males, none of them having vaginas, and thus making penetrative anal (as if vaginal) sex "false". By this polemic, frot achieves both homosexuality and masculine prestige, but alienates anal sexuality"

1. uncited again 2.Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

"Some gays feel frot is the defining form of sex of their masculinity. Groups advocating frot as essentially male sometimes polemicize it against anal sex. They may employ gender terminology to equate anal sex with femininity - and oppositely frot with masculinity, especially as a mutually cooperative activity for male bonding. Also groups may employ medical terminology to deter anal sex by emphasizing vulnerability to disease - and in contrast imbue frot with connotations of health."

and

"Some gays criticize the frot-only polemic for seeming to perpetuate homophobia and intolerance of gender variation. Even gay males who promote frot may express concern.

"For years I’ve been doing something that I’ve always considered a little odd, perhaps even subversive. It’s a sexual act that I thought had no official description or wording, and it’s something I’ve had a hard time describing to my friends. It turns out that what I’ve been doing my whole life, and constituting as sex, is “frot”. I just never knew I was so commonplace. It seems a widespread, growing activity that a number of men engage in (and probably many more, like myself, are engaged in it without really knowing that’s what they’re doing)". Yet this same advocate of frot worries about the intolerant language that may sometimes accompany it.

"What’s surprising about the literature and rhetoric of the anti-anal stance is the refusal to allow for different sexual practices. There is the slightest whiff of self-hatred and intrinsic homophobia in all of this. Shelton and Weintraub make some reasonable points, but none are fully questioned or explored. It is extremely dangerous, particularly in this troubled time, to judge someone else’s sexual activities. To join in such judgment and condemnation is risky business at best, and to lash out against “effeminacy” in the gay world is ludicrous and selfdefeating".[7] "

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. 128.192.81.40 22:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Toward a consensus text

Attempts to improve the text are welcome. Attempts to censor the text are not. Wikipedia texts must include multiple points of view. Please add notable points of view that may be missing. Perhaps editors can reach a consensus by proposing an alternative text. --Haldrik 17:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Attempts to censor the text are not." Editing for the sake of encyclopedic relavance is not censorship.

"Wikipedia texts must include multiple points of view." You've said that several times, its simply not true.

So, why should such a large section of the article should be devoted to analysis of a relatively obscure website and a few blog entries (you'll find no paralell in any of the other articles in this category) and furthermore why should you be exempt from wikipedia's policy against original research? 128.192.81.10 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• The expansions of text were attempts to meet your concerns in a compromise.
• The amount of text can be reduced.
• The "relatively obscure websites and blog entries" are the ones who pioneered the concept of frot. They are the fathers of it.
• Generally, sources that arent part of the discussion, tend to never mention frot at all. If any editors can find other sites that talk about frot, it would be greatly appreciated.

--Haldrik 20:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

*The expansions of text were attempts to meet your concerns in a compromise.

my concern is that a large chunk of this article is not encyclopedic, or at very least should be in an article about the website your referencing, not here, how could making it larger be a compromise?

Texts that talk about this specific sex position are few. These websites (more than one) represent almost all of what is said about frot. They deserve much more space than they are getting. ... Until other texts start discussing this sex position too.--Haldrik 17:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only are these websites the default authorities on the sex act (because few others talk about it), they are the "discoverers" who first investigated frot and described it. Like any encyclopedia article, they must be credited. And the context of their discussions understood. --Haldrik 17:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

*The "relatively obscure websites and blog entries" are the ones who pioneered the concept of frot. They are the fathers of it.

frot is not a concept it is a sex act, they simply appear to be the first to call it by this particular name, please look over the other articles in this category for examples of how these articles should look and what sort of content they should contain, and what amount of space in the article different sorts of content should be given 128.192.81.15 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Frot is not a concept". Except it is. The word handshake is a concept. Just saying the word also communicates all its associations of what is and isnt socially acceptable. Not all cultures shake hands. And even if individuals happen to do it randomly, it has no meaning in that culture. A kiss is also a concept, a symbol that conveys social meaning. It's not just a physical position.

Frot is a specific form sex: genital-genital sex. Obviously humans have been doing this kind of sex, since before they evolved into humans. However, at least in English, there was no word for it. People couldnt express it as a concept. And people just didnt think about it. These websites invented a word for it. They organized the specific sex act as a concept. Now the position has meaning.--Haldrik 17:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As you admit, "They simply appear to be the first to call it by this particular name." They are the first ones to call it by any name. Therefore, what motivated them to come up with a name is notable. Very important. And if you say the word "frication" was used before the word "frot", to refer specifically to genital-genital sex, you might want to know that these people who used these words also belong to the same group of people who you hate and who you are trying to censor. --Haldrik 17:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Except it is. The word handshake is a concept. Just saying the word also communicates all its associations of what is and isnt socially acceptable.

thats your opinion, I would add that handshakes are synonymous with a certain assisgned meaning because they are culturally created behaviors, frot predates human culture and symbolic reasoning, while a cultural interpretation could be signifigant on a broader scale you're just talking about a website and a couple of blog entries here.

Are you suggesting humans didnt hold hands before the gesture was given the cultural meaning of the handshake?!--Haldrik 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Like the Kiss article, the Frot article must include both the physiology of the gesture and the cultural meanings associated with it. To not do so would be unencyclopedic. And since the origin of the word for the gesture and the context in which it was invented is known, it must also be listed. --Haldrik 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And if you say the word "frication" was used before the word "frot", to refer specifically to genital-genital sex, you might want to know that these people who used these words also belong to the same group of people who you hate and who you are trying to censor.

1. stop being such a drama king, you're not being censored or oppressed or anything, your trying to insert what amounts to a breif scholarly review of a website into the middle of an encyclopedia article, it doesn't belong here, if you think the website desrves an article then go write one (but please be mindful of wikipedia's No Original Research policy, I won't try to enforce on the new article but that doesn't mean other editors won't) and there could be an internal link to it in "frot in gay and mainstream culture" or "see also", but what you're doing here is against wikipedia policy

I'm not being censored at all. I'm neutral. I personally dont care one way or the other. I feel anything that is notable and relevant needs to be mentioned and must not be censored by you. You are censoring important information. It is irrelevant whether you like them or not, or whether you agree with them or not. --Haldrik 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

2. no, it was in an independent online dictionary that doesn't reference that website (check the link), here's another [[ http://www.aaronsgayinfo.com/AlphaMenu/Fterms.html]], (I'll put that up as a refernce when the page goes off protect), the word frot appears in neither source, and then there's the terms princeton rub and climax wrestling.

According to how the given website uses the word "frication", it does not specify genital-genital sex. It is simply synonymous with what the Wikipedia article calls "frottage" (not "frot"). While the website has added a secondary meaning that does include "mutual genital friction" (= frot), nevertheless it adds yet a third definition of intracrural sex, which again is irrelevant to frot. Not to mention, the word applies to both females and males, which is entirely beyond penis-penis sex.

• "FRICATION (n.): A method of gratification practiced by a minority of male homosexuals (and female homosexuals, with certain modifications, and also heterosexuals) wherein pleasure and orgasm is experienced through fondling the body of another person through body contact and friction as well as mutual genital friction; or friction of the penis of the aggressive participant between the thighs or buttocks of the passive participant.

Only a "minority" of sexual partners rub against their partner?! Anyway, the website's use of the word is simply a synonym for "frottage", not "frot". (Of course, this link should be added to the Frottage article, rather than here.)--Haldrik 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

3. furthermore there's been pretty much no verifiable proof presented that the word frot actually originated on that website, just the claim, I've seen it elsewhere as a personal ad abbreviation for frottage, 128.192.81.24 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an undisputed claim. I've researched the word myself, and as far as I can tell it appears unattested anywhere until Weintraub himself coined it. He obviously had the motive to invent the word. There is no reason to doubt the claim. He coined it. It's a fact. --Haldrik 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the link on the page directly afer the word frication first appears it specifically refers to penile-penile frot, the second includes genital friction as part of the primary definition, not the secondary definition

and as I said there are still the terms climax wrestling and Princeton rub

I'm not being censored at all. I'm neutral. I personally dont care one way or the other. I feel anything that is notable and relevant needs to be mentioned

it was already mentioned under "frot in gay and mainstream culture" and given an amount of space appropriate to its relavance to the topicWikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

and must not be censored by you. You are censoring important information.

by asking it be moved to the appropriate article? If this website is so important why can't you simply write an article about it rather than cramming it in here? As I said earlier we could put an internal link in "Frot in Gay and Mainstream Culture"

It's an undisputed claim. I've researched the word myself, and as far as I can tell it appears unattested anywhere until Weintraub himself coined it. He obviously had the motive to invent the word. There is no reason to doubt the claim. He coined it. It's a fact.

Saying "its a fact" doesnt verify anything Wikipedia:Verifiability and even if it did that doesn't justify an entire multi-paragraph section, its already mentioned in "Frot in Gay and Mainstream Culture" 128.192.81.24 00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to propose an alternative text. --Haldrik 00:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Create an article named Man2Man Alliance, cut and paste Frot in the Construction of Gay Male Masculinity there and add an internal link in the last part of Frot in Gay and Mainstream Culture, like so

[[Man2Man Alliance|his website]]

128.192.81.41 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is not acceptable. --Haldrik 07:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere I've sought out a third opinion. 128.192.81.40 17:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the Frot_in_the_construction_of_a_masculine_gay_identity section is bogged down by unverifiable statements. All the unsupported statements should be removed. On the positive side, the statements that are supported make excellent points, and there is good potential there for an excellent, enlightening section. I'd be happy to be a third, uninterested voice in your debate. RogerJ 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Now that the situation appears to have calmed, it seems worthwhile to start polishing it up. Some statements need support, and some need to be clarified further. --Haldrik 00:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Which one of us is going to start the process? RogerJ 18:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll put whats left once you remove the unverified statements here

Some gays feel frot is the defining form of sex of their masculinity

"There is a growing movement among some gay males to encourage frot as a safe alternative to penetrative sex such as anal or oral intercourse. Frot [is] a replacement for more traditional means of homosexual lovemaking. 'This growing movement of men into frot ... is not simply a matter of sexual taste. It goes farther than that, for it's a rejection of the overly and unhealthily feminized self-image of gay men that has dominated our lives for generations'. ... Tenderness, intimacy, equality, sensitivity, touch, and communication are valued and emphasized over dominance and submission."[1]

Some gays criticize the frot-only polemic for seeming to perpetuate homophobia and intolerance of gender variation. Even gay males who promote frot may express concern.

"For years I’ve been doing something that I’ve always considered a little odd, perhaps even subversive. It’s a sexual act that I thought had no official description or wording, and it’s something I’ve had a hard time describing to my friends. It turns out that what I’ve been doing my whole life, and constituting as sex, is “frot”. I just never knew I was so commonplace. It seems a widespread, growing activity that a number of men engage in (and probably many more, like myself, are engaged in it without really knowing that’s what they’re doing)". Yet this same advocate of frot worries about the intolerant language that may sometimes accompany it.

"What’s surprising about the literature and rhetoric of the anti-anal stance is the refusal to allow for different sexual practices. There is the slightest whiff of self-hatred and intrinsic homophobia in all of this. Shelton and Weintraub make some reasonable points, but none are fully questioned or explored. It is extremely dangerous, particularly in this troubled time, to judge someone else’s sexual activities. To join in such judgment and condemnation is risky business at best, and to lash out against “effeminacy” in the gay world is ludicrous and selfdefeating".[9]

the first quote's footnote doesn't work the next two are fairly large chunks of text from the same article and there's currently no special permission for use of copyrighted material.

128.192.81.40 17:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinuon

As the third opinion seems to have been given above, I will delist Frot's entry at WP:3. Thank you. Themindset 19:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Some ideas

This is good but should be moved to the "non-human animal" section:

The physical act of frot would appear to preexist the evolution of hominids into humans and bonobos as it occurs frequently in the homosexual activity of both of these genetically related species.

This part is excellent:

In 2005 Larry Kramer reccommended his freind Bill Weintraub's, website The Man2Man Alliance in an interview on Gay.com, thus, frot became part of a debate within the gay male community about the role of anal sex in gay culture. Usage of the term frot may still connote hostility to anal sexuality, as the earliest instances of use appear to be on Mr. Wentraubs's website and op ed peices . For example, the Urban Dictionary of slang has its first definition of frot: "Used in the gay community as a term for an activity involving sexual gratification by rubbing that occurs between two men, who do not wish to engage in anal intercourse". Nevertheless, the term frot no longer requires the assumption of hostility to anal sex, and the second definition is simply "rubbing penises together", in and of itself.

This, I feel, leans heavily towards psychobabble and does not belong in an encyclopedic artice. This paragraph should be removed in its entirety. It's interesting, but it doesn't belong on the Wiki's frot page.

Commentators on frot often refer to Weintraub, including Joe Perez who advocates what he feels is the "dominant ethos" in the "mainstream gay culture": "Everyone’s definition of sex is equal. Real sex is whatever somebody says it is. You should always avoid making judgments of others". In this context, he welcomes the contributions of the frot movement.

However, Perez also mentions frot advocates who "go overboard", who are "wrong to say that supporting frot sex means disowning anal sex". Nevertheless, even "these sex activists are more than entitled to challenge a few sacred cows, however controversial their questionable views may be".Even proponents of frot may express concern with the polemic language.

This is an off-topic distraction and is beyond the scope of this article. I would remove it completely as well.

The term g0y often occurs in self-descriptions of members in various dating services , and originates from a similarly themed internet site which, amoung other things, promotes frot and decries anal intercourse. Some websites have banned members who refer to this term. Urban Dictionary defines g0y as "a homosexual man who does not practice anal sex".

RogerJ 16:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your advice is noted. If you can, try to incorporate some of the information previous to the extreme POV deletions by the anonymous sockpuppet, User:128.192.81.40. --Haldrik 22:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A sockpuppet is a second screen name someone uses to edit, I've only been using an IP address, and the way I've been editing it has been removing less from the article than is suggested here, (though I wholeheartledly second his suggestion that we remove more) it just looks like I've taken out more because I've removed the voluminous quotes (the copyright status of which you still haven't addressed). 128.192.81.40 23:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous user sockpuppet User:128.192.81.40 has 5 reverts on 28 September 2006. --Haldrik 23:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"annonymous sockppet" is an oxymoron, a sockpuppet is an additional account used by an editor. Upon looking at the history I see I made four reverts and for that I apologize, I think I ran into an editing conflict or something. 128.192.81.16 16:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The blanking occurred on 5 separate occasions on 28 September 2006. --Haldrik 18:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC2

Hi, I am no on in particular, but am responding to the RfC. I edit primarily sexology and sexuality articles. I'm wondering if you guys mind if I check this article out and give opinions? I will read the article first, and then the talk section. If I can help, I am glad to. Atom 21:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Please contribute! --Haldrik 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. 128.192.81.3 02:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments regarding article

I've read a bit, and here are some comments. I'll look at it further, but this is a first pass.

The article describes itself as a neologism. I think that is accurate, however, you should know that in Wikipedia, that can be a problem.

See below, as copied from the article on the Wikepedia policy Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms

Articles on neologisms
Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

• The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.
• The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or Articles for deletion). Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.

The term "Frot" seems to be as described here, the emergence of a new term by a community of interest. Documenting neologisms can be very difficult, as much of it is needs to be original research.

It is only a matter of time before someone on wikipedia (some right-wing religious conservative type) sees this article, is "offended" that it exists, and tries to have the article deleted, using that it is a neologism as a basis. A second pass will be someone trying to merge it into the frottage article as a sub-category.

Now, I am not making a judgement either way. I'm warning an advance so that you can take appropriate defensive actions. First, I wouldn't advertise it as a neologism on the page. Second, although there are many references, they all point back to 1) a blog -- not a reliable source b) "Urban Dictionary" and "Aarons dictionary" -- bad, because you want this to be more than a dicitonary entry. I think on reference to a dictionary is ok. c) "gaymart.com"which will be criticized as a commercial site and removed d) g0ys.org (too many references to the same place)

So, cleaning up references, finding alternative references, and focusing on high quality references would be good. Academic references would help the best in trying to show that it is beyond the beginning stages of being a neologism, and that research by academics has been done on the subject.

The point is made, numnerous times, about Frot being non-anal. Of course, this is integral, and needs to be mentioned. But, by it being said over and over, it sounds like it is being pushed. One of the Wikpedia policies is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. I suggest making the point strong, early in the article, and leaving it at that.

NPOV is important. You want to present alternative views fairly. Not just the PRO view. You have a section of "advantages of frot" Add a "disadvantages" or "criticisms".

The existing external links need to go. External links should rarely be in an article. When they are, they need to be specific and to the point, and provide information directly related that is not in the article. This begs the question of why it is not in the article. Sometimes with a detailes scientific or analystic subject additional low level detail can best be referenced by an external link rather than making a too long article longer by bringing it in. I don't think that applies here.

The section "Frot in the construction of a masculine gay identity" is too long and rambling, and needs a good copyedit. Probably it is largely the work of one editor. I think having the section is probably appropriate, but needs the help of other editors to copyedit it down to the essentials. There is certainly good information there. The problem is that the average reader misses the meat of the meaning because it is too big.

To fend off the merge to frottage that could occur, make a section on how it *is* related to frottage, and how it is not. It seems to me that the sociology of Frot is substantially different, and that it is a subject sufficiently seperate that including it all in frottage would be a disadvantage. It needs to be seen that way to those who would propose a merge.

Some slight reorganization/rewrite of the article might be beneficial. Maybe a start by a solid web search to develop a list of quality references on the subject, and then an outline based on that research, and a rewrite/reorg based on the outline.

I see that there has been a battle between editors on reverts and the like. I would like to see more "assume good faith" and discussion about the article on the talk page instead.

I recommend that the editor with the anon IP get a login. For whatever reason, editors with anon IP address get little respect. Probably because there are so many anon's that vandalize pages. Also, because it is hard with other people to identify. I am sure being at the University of Georgia, you probably want to remain anonymous because of the topic, or your sexuality. My recommendation is to get a login name that is anonymous, so that other can work with you better. "Bulldog" or something like that.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head. I will think on it some more.

Atom 12:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just saw the suggestions above now. Sounds good. By the way, frottage refers to any form of sexual rubbing (whether clothed or unclothed, whether gay or straight). However, frot specifies the male-male equivalent of "coitus". It is erect-penis-on-erect-penis sex. It's a specific form of sex that is only possible between men because of the features of the male anatomy. Particularly, because of the location of the male frenulum of the glans. --Haldrik 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I know what "frot" is. I did read the article. My point was not that Frot and Frottage were the same, but what you just stated. That "frot" is a sub-set of the larger super-set, "Frottage". Which is exactly why someone would want to merge Frot into Frottage. Atom 00:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well one solution to a few of those concerns is to move the page to "Penile-penile sex" since frot is both a neologism and a lingusitic derivitive of frottage that makes the page vulnerable to mergers and deletions. As an added bonus Penile-penile sex would include docking, which would give a home to a subject that is also frequently deleted or merged. Onhm 15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Masturbation can occur *in addition to* frot. However, frot has absolutely nothing to do with masturbation. "Docking", which is a form of masturbation involving the foreskin, can occur *in addition to* frot, however it has nothing to do with frot itself. --Haldrik 05:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The page never said that docking and penis to penis masturbation and penis to penis frottage were the same things, simply that they were all were forms of penile-penile sex.Onhm 17:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, seeing as there are no objections I'll just go ahead and get on with that and try and incorporate some of these suggestions into the article. Onhm 01:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You waited enough time for a response, but unfortunately I had missed your post. There is an objection to the name change. --Haldrik 05:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is what exactly?Onhm 17:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a near-zero chance anybody would enter the name in the search box to ever find this article. "Penile-penile sex" is a terrible, terrible name.

Thats why the article lists synonyms and has redirects, if someone types in frot, docking, or Princeton rub they would still find what they are looking for. Frot isn't an appropriate name either since there's so little in the way of reliable secondary sources (see Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Reliable_sources_for_neologisms), I think the best bet in the case of this article is something more along the lines of some kind of a technical description, because the only name for it in the OED is "Princton Rub" and the even more improbable "coitus contra ventrum" Onhm 01:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons there arent any words for frot in English is because frot didnt formally exist in Ancient Greece. Frot is erect penis on erect penis. However, ancient Greek sexuality violently enforced sex between males into an "active" adult role and a "passive" child roll. (It was possible for a teen to perform both the adult role with younger males and the child role with older males.) If the male in the passive child role got an erection, he was severely punished, according to cultural norms. Thus frot, which reflects an egalitarian sexual role between males, was taboo for ancient Greeks. --Haldrik 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the Princeton rub is NOT frot. The Princeton rub has to do with rubbing the penis between the bellies of the partners, which is a form of frottage. Hmmm. This article is about frot and only frot: that is, penis-penis sex. Perhaps it is worthwhile to have a separate article for various forms of male-male frottage, including intracrural sex, Princeton rub, masturbation, and so on. Altho there is nothing necessarily homosexual about these forms of frottage and they can equally occur among heterosexual couples, they are notable in gay contexts. --Haldrik 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I'm not sure what happened to my last post, but just in case the problem was on my end I'm going to restate that I think its preferable to rename this article than recommend it for deletion. However it is currently an article about a neologism, I think thats pretty much been established, furthermore it suffers from multiple problems associated with neologism articles, so if we can come up with a better name for this article (my suggestion remains a technical description i.e. penile-penile sex, penis-to-penis sex, something similar to cock-to-cock/cock2cock, which appears to be the way its ususally listed in porn, but less slangy) I think that would be great, otherwise I think it should be recommended for deletion (apparently someone already tried but also proposed another article for deletion along with it) Onhm 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont rename the article. Frot is the most common term used. --Haldrik 18:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I got to everything but "Frot in the construction..." before I do anthing to it are there any specific suggestions as to what to keep and what to cut? Onhm 03:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For reference's sake I'm going to post my last edit here. [[2]] Onhm 17:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD removal

AfD was removed for procedural error. Sorry to step on your toes, my apologies. AfD was submitted for both G0Y and Frot together. AfD requires seperate entries for seperate articles. This is the case because they have different subject matter. Please submit a seperate AfD for this article if you still feel that it is appropriate, so that response to this article can be considered on its own merits, or lack thereof. Again, my apologies. Atom 10:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No AfD is necessary --Haldrik 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion?

Why is this article beign considered for deletion? It is enclyopedic information that people should have access to. Unless of course the morality police is coming after wiki now ;( Power for Free speech and right to information!

-If they delete this, they would need to delete the stuff with heterosexual acts as well. I just think that would be fair, because I didn't see any mention of deletion on those. ChrisRJ November 4, 06; 7:09 PM PST

---Pele Nov 26, 06:--- Why to delete (at least part of it) -> I quote it: -> "Among bonobos, frot frequently occurs when two males hang from a tree limb and engage in penis fencing"... I mean penis fencing... come on people... it's ok to define what Frot means but this...

---

Merger

I am propsing that this page, and possibly tribadism, be merged with frottage for the simple fact that I don't think that there is a wide enough range of evidence to support their being apart for any other reason than idealogy.

First and foremost, the actions dscribed by frot and tribadism both fall with in the realm of frottage most obviously because they both involve genital rubbing. As far as the morpohlogy of the act goes, all three categories are identical in so far as the all involve genital rubbing. What duistinguishes them, however, are (in the case of the distinction frottage from tribadism and frot) the explicit involvement of another person, as opposed to an inanimate object, and possibly the consent of the person involved, and (in the case of the distinction between frot and tribadism) the sex of the person. Since, however, there is very little evidence of a strict and relatively long-standing distinction (at least in the case of frottage and frot) these subjects do not merit their own separate articles. After all, while Wikipedia does discuss male and female masturbation as separate topics, they both do not have their own articles.Mijopaalmc 19:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like the idea of merging frot with a word usually associatted with rubbing up against strangers on a bus. Frottage has too many meanings, and merging all of them into one article (which would only be fair) seems like a bad idea. Maxberners 21:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I am removing the merge tag again. I mean't to leave an edit explanation last time but forgot I was using popups. The reason I am removing the merger tag is that this article has recently (within the past week) gone through an AfD, and the AfD also discussed merger with Frottage as a possibilty, and was voted on. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frot_first_nomination). The result was a keep, and although there were four votes for merge, there were more against a merge. A renewed merge discussion so soon is unnecessary and a waste of people's valuable time. Atom 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think its appropriate for you to do that, particularly since one of you was part of the discussion and the other closed it. Velps

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frot_first_nomination) for the discussion. Results were: Four people voted Keep and merge, Thirteen for Keep, no merge, and one person for delete. This concluded on 4 Nov 2006. Mijopaalmc added a merge tag on 7 Nov 2006. A merge discussion and attempt to merge three days after an overwhelming number of people (13 of 17 voters) voted against a merge is out of order. If a merge is suggested again within six months, it will be removed again. Atom 20:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked around and I didn't see precedent for any such policy as that, however it looks as though a merger would be controversial and would need to to be listed on Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers anyway if anyone is still interested.Velps 01:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm note quoting a Wikipedia policy when I suggest waiting six months. I think it needs to be determined on a case by case basis. In my judgment, on an article that is small and relatively static, such as this one, substantial changes would need to be made to the article before time should be spent in re-discussing a merger. It has been decided for the moment. When is it reasonable for all of those seventeen people, or perhaps more to reconsider their positions? Should we all re-vote every week? Six months may be too little time if there is little substantive change to the article in that time period. Atom 02:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no discussion. The proposal to merge this article with Frottage, has already been discussed and was rejected. Please respect the established consensus of Wikipedia. --Haldrik 03:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I am adding an NPOV tag to this article, because the ideas that frot is only mutually penile intercourse and that frot is the correct term for the sex act represent a POV of a very small but vocal group on the Internet. This point was brought up in the AfD debate, but it seems that its proponents relied mainly on the force of their statements rather than any objective quantification to carry them. I, however, have be able to roughly quantify the the POV on the terminology and definition of frot and feel it is necessary to point out that, while this POV does represent one way of approaching frot, it is not that of the majority because this specific discourse and is part of a much larger one that espouses anti-effeminacy and anti-anal sex POV.

More will follow.Mijopaalmc 17:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think more should follow, for sure. Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with one side presenting a POV. That's fine. The NPOV means that several different perspectives may present their views, rather than trying to enforce one true view, or a predominant/consensus view only.

The solution then is to present the POV given here, and allow others with different POV's to offer their views also. The important thing is that these POV's can't merely be opinion, but have to be backed by reliable references. Sometimes objectivity can be hard to reach, but I don't see a problem with trying.

I'll have to go re-read the article, but I didn't get the impression that the current view expressed was suggsting that "the ideas that frot is only mutually penile intercourse and that frot is the correct term for the sex act". Frot is a new term, but its origin is cited here so it is not original research. If the people who use the term most frequently happen to be fairly biased about their views regarding male to male sex, that is part and parcel of the term, even if many others do not use the term or agree with that bias. Adding a statement that says exactly that "The term frot is only used by s mall minority of the gay male population, and many of those people do not agree with the anti-anal intercourse bias that frot represents." (with a citation supporting that statement)

Atom 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User Velps seems to have concerns regarding the POV of the article, which is seperate from the discussion of merge which has recently been voted on (against) in the AfD discussion. I'm not sure what the objection is, buy NPOV discussions can be pretty subjective, and so can be hard to be a settled issue. In this article, there seems to be a clear POV discussed. If there are alternate POV's, also documentable by citations, I'd like to see them in the article to help maintain as balanced a view as possible. Rather than just throwing an NPOV tag on something that is disagreed with maybe Velps, or others, could describe what it is that they object to in the article? Atom 08:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put the recent NPOV tag on, I do have other accounts but Mijopaalmc isn't one of them, but I did object to all the removal of the tags on discussions that hadn't appeared to reach any resolution, (here we are still in the POV discussion so I'm putting the tag back on, though I see now that the discussion had been dead for awhile when it was removed so I won't report it as vandalism unless its removed again) I understand the article has recently been in AfD but that doesn't mean its now under protection or anything, But if you want my opinion I think you're idea about adding a statement about the nature of this term is a step in the right direction, if you want my opinion I just think the article isn't transparent enough about this, its treating the word like its much more accepted and widely used than it is, when in reality its more analogous to a gender neutral pronoun in that its not standard english but rather a proposed term that exists mainly on the internet, we don't jump the gun and and list "hir" as English's third pronoun simply because another one doesn't exist nor should we do the same with calling frot the name of GG rubbing between human men, its a proposed term (but I reapeat myself), I could actually probably find more independant instances of the pronoun "hir" on google. Velps 17:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think the solution would be identifying frot as a neologism coined in 2000 to differentitate penis to penis frottage from other types of frottage in the opening sentence, (like hir is identified as a proposed term in its opening sentence) and to add that most gay men simply call this act frottage. Velps 17:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The AfD consensus is that this article will KEEP THE NAME FROT and will NOT MERGE into another article. If your goal is to reject the Wikipedia consensus, there is no discussion. --Haldrik 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read my post? Velps 16:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Claim that Frot = Minimal/No HIV Risk

This claim seems rather ridiculous, but we can give it the benefit of the doubt.

However, it would be unethical and dangerous to state such a claim without scientific experiment to back it up (think of the innocent people who would read this page and think there's no risk in bathing their phaluses in HIV-filled semen), so I added [citation needed] marks to it.

If people can't cite a credible scientific study, it should be deleted. If there is more than one reputable study to back it up, then more power to the claimant. (This unsigned comment was left by a user at IP 18.243.6.65)

Advantages of Frot

I have removed the following from the Advantages of Frot section for the reasons listed below each item

• They can see each other and make eye contact.

A cursory review of the anal sex positions reveals that it is indeed possible achieve this objective during anal sex. Though it is possible to be in a position during anal sex where it is impossible to make eye contact, it is not a necessary condition of anal sex to be in such a position.

• They can combine sex with kissing on the mouth including French kisses.

As above pertaining to French kissing instead of eye contact

• They can both caress one another.

As above pertaining to caressing instead of eye contact

• Requires very little suppleness from either partner.

As above pertaining to suppleness instead of eye contact

• Can be done kneeling, standing, or lying face-to-face or head-to-toe.

As above pertaining to suppleness instead of eye contact

• Does not cause pain to either partner.

This is contradicted by Disadvantages of Frot. Additionally, no form of intercourse is completely guaranteed to be pain free. Anal sex can be pain free just as frot can be painful.

Mijopaalmc 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What's a nice way of saying "you don't end up with shit on your cock"? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If we list a "polite version" of the one above, I would say that we would also have to list "you don't end up with pussy juice on your cock".Mijopaalmc 18:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's also a very good point. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and pare down the Advantages of Frot and Disadvantages of Frot sections yet again. I felt that the items that I removed expressed a certain subjectivity that would be undesirable the presentation of a NPOV article. They were only advantages or disadvantages if one considered the symmetric pleasure and the relative amount of envelopment of the penis to be desirable or undesirable. Pain and disease are generally more often considered to be aspects of sexual intercourse that are to be avoided. Mijopaalmc 01:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Frot and the Consturction of Gay Masculinity

I have removed this section as it was mostly unsourced OR. Mijopaalmc 01:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"weasel" tag

I have removed {{weasel}} since I see no evidence that the anon who added it has bothered to indicate what s/he feels is covered by the rubric of "weasel wording". Replace the tag only with discussion here on the talkpage of what is believed to be "weasel wording", or better yet, remove what you feel to be "weasel wording" from the article. Skim-by-tagging does not fall within the parameters of "constructive editing". Even a quick note indicating what are believed to be "weasel words" should suffice... Tomer^talk 05:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

citations

some of these citations need clean up and more appropriate ones found. Urban dictionary for example has no editorial oversight and isn't reliable. Anyone can write anything and there is no evidence given that anyone voting for these definitions is notable in their own right, experts, or anything else that would indicate some notability and reliability to these definitions.--Crossmr 04:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism removal

I don't agree with this removal. Or are the advocates of frottage too timid for constructive criticism of their stance?

The issue of frottage is a controversial one in the gay community. Since anal sex is considered (whether rightly or wrongly) a kind of quintessential gay sex act, and frot advocates are proposing a move away from anal sex, then I feel it's only right for such a controversy to be highlighted here.

All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable sources. Often (and always for "criticism") this involves proving it by citing a source. Otherwise, your words are indistinguishable from your personal observations. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Animals

The article mentions bottlenose dolphins and bonobo monkeys. I've also seen documentaries showing play among orca males which involves a number of things (like rubbing along the seabottom) in addition to rubbing that probably conforms to the same sort of behaviour discussed here among dolphins. If I find the source again, I might add it, but I thought I would mention it here. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the necessary citation to "Other forms of frot are also common among homosexually active mammals." And yes, the book discusses this behavior in orcas, along with dozens of other species. Artdyke (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV citation needed for sexual practices of gay men during the 1950's and 1960's

I have removed the citation on this sentence:

Others argued that the popularity of anal sex would decline (presumably with a corresponding drop in HIV rates) if gay men could somehow be persuaded to stop thinking of anal sex as a "vanilla" practice, but rather as something "kinky" and not-quite-respectable—as was the case in the 1950s and 1960s, when homosexual men who preferred to do only mutual masturbation and fellatio sometimes used the mildly disparaging slang term "brownie queen" for aficionados of anal sex.

The former citation pointed to work done by Bill Weintraub who is an avowed frot advocate.

Mijopaalmc (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We could add "According to Bill Weintraub" and use the source that way. Until we get more sources. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the former citation pointed to, but I've added a citation that goes to a "Gay Today" interview with Weintraub. It's the interviewer Jack Nichols, and not Weintraub, who makes the following remarks:

I remember a time, the 1950s, when anal sex was talked about only in whispers in the nation's capital where I came out at thirteen and grew to be twenty-nine. The 1950s and early 1960s were big on oral sex. People who invited anal sex were called by a pejorative name, "brownie queens." [...] I vividly remember many gay men in those days gossiping with this tidbit: "Well, he's a brownie queen, you know." Anal sex, truly, was not chic.

So Nichol's use seems to provide a confirmation for the historical gay disparagement of anal sex that doesn't come from someone who's clearly a Frot Partisan.

(Edited to add: By the way, I'm "Throbert McGee", although I was logged in through my ru.wikipedia.org account when I originally posted this -- "Роберт МакГи" is not a deliberate attempt at sockpuppetry!) Роберт МакГи (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename page "Frottage"

Frot → Frottage — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC) The title of the article appears to e NPOV because, as the article itself describes, "frot" itself was coined by persons who were advocating a specific approach to the sex act and who used it a center piece in their approach to gay rights. Moreover, "frottage" appears to be the predominate term in use. Mijopaalmc (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with moving this article to Frottage is that the term "frottage" encompasses more than just male-male sex. It is also used to describe any type of act where a person rubs their genitals on another person for sexual stimulation. See Non-penetrative sex#Frottage. And Frottage by itself seems to be an important dab page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is it so necessary to make such a distinction? The articles on anal sex and mutual masturbation don't make such a distinction. The issue is that "frot" is that it is only used to specifically describe male-male genital-genital rubbing. Both The Joy of Gay Sex and The New Joy of Gay Sex use "frottage".Mijopaalmc (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose for the same reason there is a need to make a distinction with Tribadism. There could be an article titled Frottage which encompasses all forms of frottage, but we have the Non-penetrative sex article for that (which is what Mutual masturbation redirects to). And their being addressed or somewhat covered in one article doesn't mean that they shouldn't have their own articles. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, but add that the term is a Neologism, which is why it is not yet in the The New Joy of Gay Sex. Atom (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that there simply is no term for male-male genital-gential intercourse. The issue, as I have mentioned before, is that "frot" is a highly politicized term used to describe male-male frottage. In fact, those who advocate using it are explicit about the fact that the are coining new terminology to describe a act that already has a descriptor. All the gay sex manuals I could find (all of which were published after the coinage of "frot") use "frottage" to describe genital rubbing.

That said, I am not opposed to having a discussion of the frot movement within the frottage article, but it needs to be clear that "frot" is a term that is not mainstream and is used primarily (if not exclusively) in contradistinction to anal sex.Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mijopaalmc, what would you say to (a) having a discussion of the word "frot" as a specific term for male/male frottage subsumed within the article about "Frottage" as a sex act, while (b) creating a new and separate article called "Frot movement" -- or something along those lines -- that primarily discusses Weintraub and the g0ys as a political phenomenon that encourages gay men to avoid anal sex, and (c) deleting this "Frot" article, since (a) and (b) would make it redundant? Throbert McGee (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the term "frot" is in the mainstream within the interested group. It refers to the sex act, not the political movement. Atom (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - The subject of this article clearly is different from frottage in general. It's a specific form of non penetrative sex that is and is being advocated by some members of the gay community as an alternative to buggery. I'd say good luck to them and the article has enough references to establish notability, though it may well have POV issues that need fixing: an encyclopedia article should describe not advise. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mijopaalmc has cut out some POV. The remaining POV is the needed stuff -- Frot vs anal. And I've done what I could to fix up the article in the meantime (such as with formatting), until I add better references and such. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem, though. The frot article should not be about "frot vs anal"; it should be about the act of "frot". As far as I can discern, none of the other articles on sex acts explicitly discuss the relative risks or benefits (both physiological and psychological) of the title act compared to any other acts; only the frot article does. It is thus not in keeping with the general style Wikipedia articles on sex acts. In fact, the explicit comparison of frot and anal sex mirrors the rhetoric of the frot movement itself, which strives to prove the superiority of frot over anal sex through relative risk analysis, and therefore presents a subtle pro-frot POV in the article.Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Anal sex article discusses the risks or benefits (both physiological and psychological) in comparison to other sex acts, just not all in one section. For example, anal sex is mentioned as riskier than vaginal sex enough times. And it is reported that plenty of gay men don't have anal sex for some of the reasons mentioned in this article. It is even thought that heterosexual couples have anal sex more. As for mentioning the frot vs. anal issue here in the Frot article, it seems only natural to do so when considering that there are a lot of gay men who are either frot advocates or simply don't engage in anal play. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The only places that I have seen male-male genital-genital sex called "frot" is in the writings of and writing referencing Bill Weintraub, the Man2Man Alliance, Heroic Homosex, and the g0ys. All of these primary sources have a very specific philosophy concerning anal sex and "frot", which is underscored by using "frot" to describe what is more commonly described as "frottage".Mijopaalmc (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You may have a point. We'll see what others think. We should probably even take this to the wider community, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexuality or Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, after this move discussion is closed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me assure Mijopaalmc that the short term "frot" is very much in currency on gay sex forums, in gay male personals, and as a search tag on video sites like Xtube, without specific reference to Weintraub or g0ys. (Although I would concede that the term "frot" might be encountered more often on forums that specifically aim at the "J/O Club" and/or "circle jerk" subculture, such as nyjacks.com and bateworld.com, and less often on "general interest" gay male sex sites.)

My "original research" gives me the impression that "frot" has become accepted as shorthand meaning "I really like mutual masturbation but I'm not so much into anal" (or possibly, "I'm not looking for anal at this particular time"). In other words, it isn't necessarily used to convey a radical rejection of anal sex (as Weintraub and the g0ys would have it), but emphasizing "frot" by name is nonetheless understood to signal a relative lack of interest in anal sex. The difficulty here, of course, that the main sourcing one could provide to substantiate all this would be links to ephemeral "seeking a frot buddy" posts on gay male sex sites, which amounts to OR. Throbert McGee (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Term is clearly distinct and different than Frottage. Frottage is a general term for "sexual rubbing". Frot requires that the participants are male, and involves the act of rubbing two penises together. In the case of Tribadism, the specific body part is noe a requirement, although the two participants are female. Atom (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the term "Frot" POV?

I am having a hard time finding references to the term "frot" that do not themselves refer to the work of Bill Weintruab, the Man2Man Alliance, Heroic Homosex, or the g0ys. All these sources have a very specific approach to the relationship among what they call frot, anal sex, and male homosexuality/homosociality. Moreover, the word used to describe the act that the above sources call frot in print publications such as gay sex manuals is invariably "frottage". Therefore, I wonder if titling the article "Frot" present a subtle pro-frot POV. Mijopaalmc (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mijopaalmc, I would have preferred you waited until the move discussion was over (as I stated above). No need to be in a rush to change this article's title or have it merged. But, yes, for the other editors reading this, the title of this article has been an issue for some time, and was the main issue in its first (and currently only) AfD debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frot first nomination). Problems with renaming this article are cited in that and above on this talk page. While the act of male-to-male genital rubbing is notable, such as beyond humans, what to call it if we are to have an article on it has been the main issue. As well as if there should be a separate article on it at all. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22-

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intent in your last post. My intent is not to dispute the notability of "frot" per se, just the titling of the article that discusses male-male genital-genital rubbing. As far as I can discern, "frot" is primarily a slang term and slang terms for sexual acts are not used to title articles (e.g., titty fuck, blow job or eating pussy). I understand the notability of frot as a way of gay men negotiating their sexuality, but I think that an article the main purpose of which is to discuss a sex act such as male-male genital-genital rubbing should be titled as neutrally as possible. I have no objections to having an article entitled "Frot". However, it should be about the way gay men construct their sexuality with reference to anal sex and male-male genital-genital rubbing, not the act of male-male genital-genital rubbing itself as "frot" itself is also so much more than just the act of male-male genital-genital rubbing. Mijopaalmc (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see you did explicitly state that you would prefer that the RfC be posted after the move discussion is over. Despite having read your post several times, I missed that statement completely. I'm sorry. I'll read your posts more carefully in the future. Mijopaalmc (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's okay. And I know you are not disputing the notability of the act, just the title; as I pointed out above, that was the main issue in the deletion debate as well. But what do you mean the article "should be about the way gay men construct their sexuality with reference to anal sex and male-male genital-genital rubbing, not the act of male-male genital-genital rubbing itself as "frot"? Almost all articles about sex acts here at Wikipedia (sexual intercourse, anal sex, oral sex, etc.) are mostly about the sex act and not much about the way people live their lives in reference to the sex act (with the exception of health effects or cultural issues). The way people live their lives in reference to sex acts is covered at the Human sexual activity article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"Frot" doesn't just describe the act of male-male genital-genital rubbing it represents a specific ideological approach to identity construction through male-male genital-genital rubbing. In fact, when most publications unconnected to Bill Weintraub, the Man2Man Alliance, Heroic Homosex, or the g0ys label male-male genital-genital rubbing they use "frottage". In other words, there is a distinct lack of independent attestation for the use of "frot" to mean anything independent of the ideologies espoused by the aforementioned sources. Therefore, titling the article on male-male genital-genital rubbing "Frot" presents a pro-frot POV because it uses the word in the way that people with a specific ideology, and apparently no-one else, have chosen to define it. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The specific ideological approach is covered in the Frot vs. anal section, though. And it's just one aspect of the article, which isn't that big. But having read the deletion debate and your points about the title, I understand what you mean. Indeed, "Frot" is not the common name, per WP:COMMON NAME. The problem is...what else to call it? There is nothing else to call it but "frottage"...if we are going for a common name title. But "frottage," encompassing more than male-to-male genital rubbing, is already covered at the Non-penetrative sex article. That article is all about frottage, with different names. Therefore, we need to let that article cover male-to-male frottage...if we are not to have an article titled Frot. To point out something, though, "Non-penetrative sex" is not common wording either and yet that's what that article is titled...instead of the more common word Frottage. People also use the words "scissoring" and "tribbing" more than they use the word Tribadism. In that case, however, we go with Tribadism because it is the more proper term with origin-history and "scissoring" and "tribbing" are more slang terms. Not to mention, "scissoring" is just one aspect of tribadism. Needless to say, you and others have made a point about not having the sex act titled by its slang term here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem with male-male genital-genital rubbing not having a specific name is. There's no specific name for male-male fellatio or male-male mutual masturbation. Why not call it male-male genital-genital rubbing? Mijopaalmc (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It not having a name is the problem that keeps being brought up. You are the latest to bring it up. It's a problem because this article has given it a name that you and some others say is not a common name for the act; that it's longer name "Frottage" (which encompasses more than male-male genital rubbing) is what is used more often to describe it." You even call it POV. That is what I meant. And of course there's no name for male-male fellatio. Fellatio is fellatio, no matter who is performing it. It always involves a mouth and a penis. With genital rubbing, however, the "ingredients" are not always the same. And as for mutual masturbation, I'm not seeing why there would need to be a name to describe this act between males either. No more than specific names for it in regards to heterosexuals and lesbians. While the "ingredients" are not always the same here either, it does always involve genitals and hands. I suppose the acts of vulva-to-vulva and penis-to-penis are seen as needing names because they are very specific acts. Either way, I am not saying male-male rubbing needs a name other than what it is. I am saying that it not having a name other than what it is has been one of the main issues at this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Penis-to-penis rubbing is called "frot" (фрот) by Russian wikipedia

The Russian definition for фрот is вид гомосексуального секса без проникновения между мужчинами, когда партнёры достигают оргазма путём взаимного трения членами и яичками друг о друга, which translates as "a form of homosexual sex between men without penetration, when the partners reach orgasm via the penises and testicles mutually rubbing against each other."

Not only that, but apparently the shortened coinage "frot" with the very specific meaning of non-penetrative male/male sex has been embraced by some gay/bi wiki editors who speak Bulgarian, Croatian, Spanish, Indonesian, Polish, Chinese, etc. (Although admittedly, the Italian article seems to treat "frot" as just a variant of "frottage.")

The fact that speakers of various other languages have recognized "frot" as an English slang term in currency, with the specific meaning of male/male genital rubbing, seems to me a very strong argument for maintaining "frot" as an independent article, rather than merging it into a sub-section of the "frottage" article. Throbert McGee (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point -- looking at other Wikipedia articles in different languages that also go by the title Frot. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if they a derived from the English. Moreover, I'm not sure that it matters what other languages use, because, in English, "frot" is associated with a very specific ideological outlook on homosexuality and anal sex. 76.178.146.128 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the fact that most of the articles in other languages borrowed the little cartoon drawing of two men "doing frot" from the English Wiki article, I think it's safe to assume they all derive the word from the English slang. But that in itself is an argument for maintaining the English article -- English is the world's favorite second language and lingua franca, and articles in English Wikipedia are therefore going to be a disproportionately important point of reference for users developing articles in foreign-language Wikis.

As an example, I can tell you from firsthand knowledge that Russian and German are popular foreign languages to study in Turkey -- but "İngilizce" is even MORE widely studied than either of those, so a gay/bi Turk who encountered the word "frot" on the Web and wanted to add this term to the Turkish Wikipedia would most likely go to the English Wikipedia first, notwithstanding the fact that there are some Turks who happen to be more conversant по-русски or auf Deutsch than in English.

And despite the ideological connotations that "frot" may have in English, these aren't necessarily carried over when other languages borrow the word -- neither the Russian article nor the Spanish one, for example, compares anal sex unfavorably to frot, since neither one even mentions anal sex at all. (However, both the Russian and Spanish articles pointedly distinguish "frot" from "frotteurism".)

And incidentally, earlier versions of the English article specifically mentioned "kissing while face-to-face" and "often done all the way to orgasm" in the lede graf -- and though they've subsequently been edited from the English version, equivalents of these phrases do appear, respectively, in the Spanish and Russian articles. (Edited to add: I brought up this point as possible evidence that foreign-language articles do in fact use English Wikipedia articles as a template/starting point. And after thinking about it, I decided to restore the "often leading to orgasm" language to the 1st-sentence definition, since the Big Philosophical Question of whether frot is conceptualized as "sex in itself" or "foreplay to sex" is mentioned later in the article. However, I didn't see any reason to include kissing as part of the essential definition.)

Throbert McGee (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, and, in English, not only is "frot" a slang term it is also a term specifically contrived by a group with a specific approach to anal sex within the LGBT community to replace "frottage". Do you think that the English Wikipedia should reflect the etymology and usage of "frot" in English? Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Do I think that the English Wikipedia should reflect the etymology and usage of "frot" in English? Yes, I do -- and it does, in fact, discuss both the etymology and the usage of the word. I'm not sure what your hang-up is with slang; Wikipedia has an entry on the slang term bareback (sex) (rather than "condomless anal sex," or whatever). There is also an entry on queer -- which, when used to mean "LGBT", would not only be flagged as slang by many dictionaries, but was also "specifically contrived" to reflect a particular philosophical and political outlook about the identity of non-heterosexual people. Throbert McGee (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My "hang-up" with slang is that the majority of publications about gay sex practices do not use "frot" to describe penis-to-penis intercoruse; they call it "frottage". The only place where I can find a consistent (though not exclusive) use of "frot" to refer to penis-to-penis intercourse is within the community of gay men (some of who vehemently reject the label "gay", because of its links to anal sex and effeminacy) who are virulently anti-anal-sex. Using a word that was coined by an in-group which a very specific approach to anal sex and homosexuality heavily suggests that POV.

By the way, the bareback article does not single out anal sex or gay sex for the label. Moreover, it in fact links to the safe sex article, which explains safe sex in general terms as a collection of sex acts and leaves the particulars of the life-style choice to practice unprotected sex to the bareback article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of the term '"frot" and its meaning

"Frot is a slang term (ult. from the French verb frotter, "to rub") describing a form of male/male sex that is completely non-penetrative, usually (but not exclusively) with an emphasis on direct penis-to-penis contact that leads to orgasm for both men"

And, in the Etymology section: "Although it's not known with total certainty who originally coined the word, or when, frot (rhyming with "dot") was shortened from the term "frottage" (rhyming with "massage"), a more generic and unisex term for various types of non-penetrative genital rubbing."

NOw, is the article about the activity, or is it about the current debate? Certainly the activity of male to male penis frotage has existed prior to the debate in the gay community indicated in the article -- right?

The article itself says: "The physical act described by the term "frot" – that is, penis-to-penis rubbing between males—is thought to have preexisted, according to some evolutionary theory, the development of hominids into humans and bonobos, and may or may not have occurred in the homosexual activity of both of these genetically related species.[2]"

And, related: "Genito-genital rubbing or GG rubbing is a term frequently used by primatologists to describe tribadism among female bonobos.[4]"

So, apparently this is an activity that has existed among primates for a long time, possibly a hundred thousand years or more?

Now, the article was written in 2004 as a redirect to frottage, and then the first text was added in 2005. "Frot is a colloquial term for male-male genital sex. That is, penis-penis rubbing until mutual orgasm, typically while kissing. It is also known in slang terms as "phrot", "swordfighting", "cockrub", "manrub", "penis fencing", "bumping dicks", "frication", "wrestling", "cock knocking", "cock2cock", "the Woodberry Hello" and "the Princeton Rub". Advocates of frot note it is more erotic, more pleasurable, more intimate, more masculine, more egalitarian than oral sex or anal sex. Frot is also much safer against the risk of STDs. The slang term "docking" is a variant of frot that puts the foreskin of one penis over the glans of the other penis, and is to somewhat more vulnerable to STDs because of the exposure of the urethra and the inner mucal membrane of the foreskin to the partner's semen."

Bill Weintraub edited the article shortly thereafter (in 2005), Bill claims to be the person who coined the term "frot". Which seems to be disputed. He added a link to his web site (man2manalliance.org)

As I can find no scholarly references to the term anywhere, It is possible that Bill did coin the term, and possible that the term existed prior to 2000.

In any event, the term as described by Bill does not say anything about the things mentioned in the current description.

"Frot is a slang term (ult. from the French verb frotter, "to rub") describing a form of male/male sex that is completely non-penetrative, usually (but not exclusively) with an emphasis on direct penis-to-penis contact that leads to orgasm for both men"

This really should read more like "Frot is a slang term (ult. from the French verb frotter, "to rub") describing a form of male/male sex with an emphasis on direct penis-to-penis."

I base this on the fact that the act itself apparently has existed for along time, regardless of the word used, and this article is about the act, and not the etymology of the word. (although that is a fair sub-topic on the article about the act itself.)

Also, nowhere in biological descriptions of the primate act, nor at Bill Weintraub's web site describing his definition of the term, does it say that the act must lead to orgasm for it to qualify as "frot". Also, similarly, no one says anything about exclusively or completely non-penetrative. Sure, penetrative sex is not frot, and frot is not penetrative penile-vaginal or penile-anal sex. But a gay couple could engage in frot as foreplay to anal sex, or erotic play where neither partner had an orgasm and "frot" would still have occurred, regardless of what other things did or did not happen.

I think since there has been a minor debate in the past for some people advocating the act of Frot being used exclusively without anal or oral sex, that this has carried over into the article in the past by one or more editors.

The article should describe the act of "frot" accurately, and some other sub-section can describe that there is a debate and different aspects of that debate. The fact that there is a debate though, has not changed the act of frot from being exclusive(no other sex acts coincide with it -- no anal sex for instance), or from orgasm being the end goal of the experience.

For that reason, I am correcting the lede para to remove the misinformation and focus on the act, rather than the debate. Atom (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Terms/synonyms for Frot

The reason I removed the misc terms listed in the article is firstly because the link that was there at out.com did not resolve, but also because in researching the terms, there seem to be no sources that support any of those terms being used. SO, either the terms were recently made up, or they are slang terms of such low incidence that they do not exist in any literature or dictionary.

Also, the article is not here to collect all of the slang on the topic. Like other articles, such as the Penis article, there is not a long list of all of the slang term that people use for penis. Instead the article says "As with nearly any aspect of the human body that is involved in sexual or excretory functions, the word penis is considered humorous from a juvenile perspective, and there are many slang words and euphemisms for the penis."

Having one or two synonyms for the topic could be acceptable, but a sub-section acting as a dumping ground for all slang that people have thought up, or have heard for the topic is not appropriate.

Recently the link was re-added, going through archive.com to get to the now non-existent out.com article. Reading the article I see a few problems. It is human interest column by an out.com writer, and not what we in Wikipedia would say was a reliable source. Also-- the term used here are discussed in the article in this manner, "Strangely, frottage has almost achieved mythic status in an academic context. It is known colloquially as “the Princeton rub” or “the Ivy League rub,” or an “Oxford style” of sex, in reference to the activities of horny young men during the long, cold winters away at all-boys schools in the 19th century." The problem with this, other than that the writer offers their opinion about how these terms have been used with no documentation or citations or sources, the author is referring to "Frottage" and not the word "Frot".

In my editorial opinion, we should remove slang terms for the act and stick to the topic. Atom (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Atom. You removed the link without checking at Internet Archive for a replacement. But many Wikipedia editors are unaware that they can get archived links or that there are such sites, so I'm not sure if I should fault you on that or not. Either way, slang terms do not have to exist in literature to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Plenty of slang terms don't exist in literature, but as long as they are backed by reliable sources, they can be included.

There are Wikipedia articles that have sections specifically devoted to synonyms or slang terms (or both). Oral sex, Buttocks, Split-quaternion, Sprite (computer graphics), Milling machine, Transient synovitis, etc. (though some of these articles need fixing up). Not trying to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as some great argument but rather as an example that Wikipedia does not consider it inappropriate...as there are decent, good, and featured articles with synonym sections.

Out.com is a reliable source, per WP:Reliable sources. I'm not seeing how it (the source in this Wikipedia article) being "a human interest column" has anything to do with it. Nor do I see anything wrong with the fact that the author says "frottage" instead of "frot." It is well-established, especially on this talk page, that "frot" is a slang term for "frottage." The author is clearly mainly speaking of male-male sex, which means he is speaking of the term in the same concept as this Wikipedia article. All "frot" is...is the term shortened to refer specifically to male-male frottage.

Those are my thoughts on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that I could not find the link, so I removed it. It is cool that you found it at archive.com. Now, just because some articles have lots of slang words, doesn't mean that we should collect slang words for the term. I try to keep that to a minimum in any article I see. Like other things, we have to say to ourselves, does a given term benefit the article by being there? If a term were a common term, then a reader would recognize it, and think, "Oh, yeah, I know what that is.". If it is a little used or obscure term, or a list of obscure slang terms, then what purpose is there in having it in the article?

Of course I know that the term "Frot" originated from the term "frottage". But, Frot and Frottage currently have different meanings and are not the same thing. The article cited does not differentiate. So, assuming that in the past the slang given did have something to do with frottage. How are we to know that the term was used in the same context as the current (recently coined) term Frot? Without some kind of scholarly citation, we have no way to know. Maybe the term is speakign of intercrual sex?

As for Out.com being a reliable source, an citation is not reliable or not reliable just because of the banner of the periodical. Some out.com articles I am sure are reliable. But, the source is the author themselves. My opinion is that it was a fluff piece where some write threw in his opinions about the topic. Fine, but without some reason to believe he is an expert, or a professional writer who has done appropriate research. Someone writing an editorial in a paper is not authoritative as a reliable source, for instance. Atom (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Synonyms and definitions section in this article is valid, in my opinion. It's not even that big. How can we decide "People don't know this synonym" for any one of them and remove? I don't see the problem with letting it all stay. And there should definitely be a Definitions section speaking of how the act may or may not be defined, since it does not always mean penis to penis among gay men.

When speaking of male to male frottage, it is usually called "frottage," not "frot." So, yes, the two terms often mean the same thing. The only difference is that "frot" cannot be used to describe frottage among heterosexuals or lesbians. The word frot is distinct in that way, I agree. This has been the topic of recent debate above, the move discussion, etc. If frottage is being talked about on a gay male site, with specific mention to gay males, then it is clear that the context is male-male frottage...not frottage among everyone.

For what you are speaking of in regards to the Out.com source, I defer to Wikipedia:Verifiability. We could check out the author and see if he is an expert on gay male sexuality, etc. But right now, I see the source counting as reliable. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"How can we decide "People don't know this synonym" for any one of them and remove?" Hence the need for some reliable citation. A scholarly journal for instance. Otherwise a collection of slang terms that people add randomly that can not be verified in any way is not useful. You say that you feel that the cite given is solid. I think it is a gay writer writing a fluff piece for a gay magazine. He has heard the terms used before and relays it to us, the same way that our gay next door neighbor might. It is interesting, but doesn't meet the standards for Wikipedia inclusion, in my opinion. It really isn't a big enough deal to worry about. Misinformation or misunderstanding will not cause any life treating problems or anything, it just doesn't really follow the policies. It is just my natural inclination to remove collections of slang terms in sexuality articles when I see them. Atom (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The word Frot and Frottage are not synonyms. They mean something different. Having heard some of those terms used before (as I was once an academic) I am of the opinion that in the past they were used to mean general frottage and intercrual sex, and not always between two males, sometimes with objects. As the citation uses the term Frottage, which could accurately describe those activities, that is the context I see it. They don't refer to Frot specifically. (I mean terms like "The Princeton Rub" and "oxford style") Do a Goggle lookup on the terms -- can you find anything at all on those? Don't you think that if they are so obscure that slang references for them are not significant on a google lookup, that telling others that they mean "Frot" is marginally valuable at best?" You are a Goddess. I'll refer to your judgement, it isn't that big a deal. Atom (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

People being unfamiliar with alternate words for a term is no reason not to include the information. In fact, it is more reason to include them. That is the main reason such sections are created, from what I have seen. Otherwise, what is the point of informing people of names they are already quite familiar with? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And I wouldn't say any of these names, other than "frottage," are generally used by the general public. But these alternate terms are sourced, is my point. You disagree with the source. I have showcased above why the material does follow policy. You disagree. Nothing more substantial can be stated from us on this matter.

The words Frot and Frottage are clearly often synonymous, as Mijopaalmc (and others before him) wonderfully showcased above. The sources I have included in this article showcase the same thing. I did not say they are always synonymous. What I am saying, however, is that reliable sources clearly show that when speaking of male-to-male genital sex or a male rubbing his genitals on any body part of another male, the word frottage is generally used over the word frot. "Frot" is hardly ever used. This article is only designated under the title Frot...because "frot" specifically refers to male-male sex, while "frottage" encompasses more than just male-to-male sex. That is the only way the terms are not synonymous. I'm not sure what you mean by me being a Goddess, but I don't have much more to state on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are missing my point, I think. Of course helping people to become familiar with terms they are unaware of is a useful function in Wikipedia. Helping them to become familiar with terms that don't really mean what we say they mean is not useful though. Putting a slang term that we have one questionable reference for, and can't find any citations anywhere else (like a Google search) is not useful. If we can, according to Wikipedia policies, be confident that a term means what we think it does, then we as editors have the optin of adding it into the article. That doe snot mean that we must put it in just because we can cite it. For example, putting all 287 available sland words for penis in the penis article is, at this point, not seen as useful, even though many if not most of them can be cited. In this case, we can not with confidence say that, for instance "Princeton rub" is discussing Frot, when most people I know would say that it means "Rubbing the penis against your bedsheets", and even then, we can find no reference for the term in literature. Atom (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that the terms "Frot" and "Frottage" are synonymous. For one, if they were, this article would be a sub section in the Frottage article. They both have commonalities in that they involve Rubbing. It would not be correct to say that Masturbation is synonymous with Frottage, even though rubbing is done there too. Synonymous means that they mean the same thing, and could be used interchangeably in a conversation or other usage with no confusion. Despite what this article says, "Frot" requires two penises (penii?) rubbing together. If the term Frot and Frottage were synonymous, one could say "The two lesbians found great pleasure in performing Frot together." If there is only one Penis, then it is Masturbation, if there is two penises, and they rub against one another's legs and thighs, it is called intercrual sex, and not Frot, even though Intercrual is a form of Frottage too. Frottage is a more general term. One could say "Homosexual men and women often engage in Frottage with their partners." This does not specifically say that a penis is involved, and would be accurate even if no penis is involved. To say something like that using the word "Frot" implies a form of frottage that involves two penises rubbing against one another. If the two men were rubbing their penises against each others face and mouth, for example, this would also be an example of activity that is not Frot. Frot requires at least two penises rubbing against one another. Atom (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not misunderstanding you on that; I just disagree.

Frottage, however? I'm not seeing how you are disagreeing that "Frot" and "Frottage" are sometimes synonymous, given what I stated above. Again, I am not saying that they are always synonymous. But to say they are never synonymous is not backed up by reliable sources. Reliable sources show otherwise. I already mentioned the only way that "frottage" and "frot" are distinct; one ("frot") refers to male-male sex specifically. The other ("frottage") encompasses more than just male-male sex. The reason there is no subsection on Frot in the Non-penetrative sex article (Frottage has no article)...is because "Frot" and "Frottage" are sometimes synonymous. Notice I said "sometimes." They are synonymous in that "frottage" encompasses "the act of achieving sexual pleasure with a partner or partners, whether naked or clothed, without penetration." You are disagreeing with reliable sources. Also, I see no reliable source saying "frot" only means "penis to penis." Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is why we have different views. Frot requires penis to penis rubbing. If it did not, then there would be no difference between Frot and Frottage, other than it involves two males. The reason that I say that the two words are not synonymous is because they can not be used interchangeably in the same context, which is what synonymn means. I haven't disagreed at all with your stated definition of frottage, or reliable sources that describe frottage. We have only been discussing the term "frot". As I said elsewhere in this talk pages, the article is about the act (of two men rubbing the penises together, not the etymology of the word.) Just as Tribadism is a special case of frottage, so is Frot. That does not mean they are synonymous. Words are not sometimes synonymous. There are terms where one is more general, and one is more specific, and so the first term term can be inclusive of the other, but the converse is not the case (which would be true with synonynms.) For instance, all frot is frottage, and all intercrual sex is frottage and all masturbation is frottage and all tribadism is frontage. One could use the term Frottage to describe any of them accurately, but one could not use Frot or Tribadism or Masturbation in all of the same situations that one can use Frottage. Frottage is more general and inclusive, and the others are more specific special cases (subset). So 'frottage and frot are not sometimes synonyms just because one can use the word frottage in a sentence when one means Frot.

You said there is no reliable sources that say that it means penis to penis sex, and yet Bill Weintraub, the self described person who "coined" the term, says "I don't use the word "Frottage" because it is an ersatz French word which can indicate any sort of erotic rubbing. Frot by contrast, is always phallus-to-phalus sex." [3] (my emphasis) and "The offical term for cock rubbing is Frot.[4] So, here are two reliable sources that support what I have said.

Could you find me a reliable source (a book or scholarly article, rather than a web page influenced by the Wikipedia article) that defines Frot is a context that does not include penis to penis rubbing? Atom (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Frot requiring penis to penis rubbing is your opinion, and apparently Bill Weintraub's too. To me, that is like saying Tribadism requires vulva to vulva rubbing. Just because "frot" usually describes penis to penis rubbing doesn't mean penis to penis rubbing is the only definition for it. And, yes, the Frot articles exists because it is specifically about male-male grinding. As for "sometimes synonymous," maybe I should have said "interchangeably." Because interchangeably? In the context of male-to-male genital rubbing, "frottage" and "frot" are clearly used the same way the majority of the time. The following sources, for example, are describing male-to-male genital rubbing under the title frottage, and not frot: [5][6] All sources, except a few attributed to Bill Weintraub, are like that. When discussing male-to-male genital rubbing, the term "frottage" is usually used instead. Why? Other than "frot" not being a well-known term? Because, as the Non-penetrative sex#Frottage section (which is backed up by a reliable source on this) states: Frottage can include mutual genital rubbing, sometimes called genito-genital or GG rubbing and most of the other forms of non-penetrative sex. Of course, Bill Weintraub is going to say that frot only means "penis-to-penis" rubbing. A little after that, he even says "because that's what sex is: genital-genital contact," as if all other forms of sexual activity are not sex. Even the author notes that some of his opinions are controversial. And with just about every interview he is in, the interviewer attributes him as saying "frottage" or uses "frot" and "frottage" interchangeably when referencing his websites. Furthermore, your first source uses the words interchangeably, despite Weintraub's distinction. And your second source even says, "The official term for cock rubbing is frot (or frottage)." What we truly disagreed on, it seems, is whether terms are "sometimes synonymous." But, in the context of male-to-male genital rubbing, you cannot disagree with the fact that "frottage" and "frot" are used interchangeably. Sources clearly show that they are. That's what I meant when I said the two terms often mean the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and that first source mentions "Princeton rub" too. Seems we now have a Google Books source for it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how a source saying that frot is a type of frottage makes your point at all. And the source on Princeton rub seems to indicate that it is Frottage, which makes my point that it is not Frot. As the term Frot is not used, it is not Frot they are discussing. I gavce a reliable source that clearly indicates that Frot and Frottage are considered to be two different things. You may not like the source, but two different books that say that by people other than Weintraub (even if they quote Weintraub) seems reliable to me. Atom (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)