Jump to content

Talk:Sex position: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by Moss Ryder - ""
Line 125: Line 125:
== multiple penetration ==
== multiple penetration ==


Ok, well, my edit adding triple anal penetration to the mult. pen. section has been removed o because it was unsourced and because "the addition was unsourced, and not even really a position. The article is not an arbitrary list of every conceivable sex act." I assure the editor that this is a real sex act, and a quick google shows that. I was hoping someone might be able to help me find a RS for this. A simple google search will bring up many examples, but im not up to speed on what would be considered a RS for this info. in the meantime i will continue to search for RS for this. 15:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Moss Ryder|Moss Ryder]] ([[User talk:Moss Ryder|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Moss Ryder|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Ok, well, my edit adding triple anal penetration to the mult. pen. section has been removed o because it was unsourced and because "the addition was unsourced, and not even really a position. The article is not an arbitrary list of every conceivable sex act." I assure the editor that this is a real sex act, and a quick google shows that. I was hoping someone might be able to help me find a RS for this. A simple google search will bring up many examples, but im not up to speed on what would be considered a RS for this info. in the meantime i will continue to search for RS for this. 15:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:31, 7 June 2011

Former featured listSex position is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 9, 2005Featured list candidatePromoted
October 10, 2006Featured list removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured list
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality List‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archive

Archives


1 2

"Sandwich picture" in fact illustrates "train sex"

Unless the furthest-left man has an infeasibly long penis.

We should not use the word "uncircumcised"

We should use the words "natural", "normal", or "intact" to describe normal male genitalia that have not been modified or mutilated. Do we refer to people with normal oral anatomy as "untonsilectomized"? Or normal female anatomy as "unmastectomized"? Or men who have not had a vasectomy as "unvasectomized"? I would have corrected this error myself, but the article is semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.24.25 (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 129.215.113.85 (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The mention of someone being uncircumcised makes no sense in-context, since to "Dock" you would need a full-sized foreskin. Obviously this means that the person in question would not be circumcised. It makes sense without the "uncircumcised" word addition, so I vote that the word be removed and not replaced. This is more a question of international POV. If we're in the US, the word "uncircumcised" seems okay, but in England and most of the world, it would seem to be a redundant phrasing in this context.98.225.230.65 (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it, guys. MaraquanWocky (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WOW! Way to go pushing your agenda, and congratulations on no one effectively blocking your POV pushing. Jersey John (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other positions - scissor

Under "other positions" the description of the scissors position should be modified to say "manual stimulation of the breast and/or clitoris" rather than just "breast stimulation." Source: From personal experience, even a previously non-orgasmic woman may reach orgasm if the male partner is inside her in the scissors position, with left hand stimulating her right nipple, and right hand stimulating her clitoris.

Rkschaffner (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under the missionary position the possibility of the man being on top with the woman underneath but the woman has her legs together and flat seems to have been overlooked. The merit of this position is that the largest part of the man's cock engages the tightest part of the woman's cunt - which has its merits. 89.195.66.25 (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple penetration

Why isn't their any mention of urethra penetration? While not common, some women have made a name for themselves by being able to do it (the amazing Ty to name one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.8.117 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to plural title, if only to not override the page history of the singular. — kwami (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


List of sex positionsSex position — Unnecessary division; Sex position is currently a stubbier duplicate of this one (with the exception of the History section). Cybercobra (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Docking

Really? Do people do this? I don't see how you could get sexual pleasure from it.--72.24.207.77 (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if "admin" on "cockdockers".org says so, it must be true. I mean, who's going to admit they actually clicked the link to verify the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.252.23 (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how sensitive the penis is -- the way it responds to friction when aroused -- I presume so, that men get pleasure from this. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another move, perhaps -- to Sex acts and positions? Or Sex acts and sex positions?

I know this article was just moved a few months ago, but it is clear that this article is just as much about the acts as it is about the positions. I believe one of the two titles suggested in my heading above would be more accurate and benefit readers more. For example, Sex acts redirects to Human sexual activity...when it would be better redirected here (in my opinion). Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected Sex act and Sex acts to Sex positions for now. Flyer22 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Phoebepuppy, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}


Phoebepuppy (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC) SPELLING CHECK[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please explain specifically what needs to be changed. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Fdemers, 4 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} PLEASE CHANGE insertion of the male's penis into a partner's anus TO insertion of the penis into a partner's anus

REASON: few females have a penis

SOURCE: any book on human anatomy should do

Fdemers (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Your request is also consistent with the other descriptions (vaginal and oral) before that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

While I agree that many of the names for positions that are presented are descriptive, we should not try to stray too far into current slang usage. I can think of many now-defunct names for certain positions, but odd ones still appear on this page. For instance, with MFM double penetration: "this is sometimes called the sandwich or BigMac". BigMac? Really? At least sandwich is more descriptive. And the use of the term "Rusty trombone" for a sex act? I know what it is and I know it has an article, but I feel that this term's usage will go out of style in the very near future. 69.196.161.124 (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

multiple penetration

Ok, well, my edit adding triple anal penetration to the mult. pen. section has been removed o because it was unsourced and because "the addition was unsourced, and not even really a position. The article is not an arbitrary list of every conceivable sex act." I assure the editor that this is a real sex act, and a quick google shows that. I was hoping someone might be able to help me find a RS for this. A simple google search will bring up many examples, but im not up to speed on what would be considered a RS for this info. in the meantime i will continue to search for RS for this. 15:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)