This 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
The article cited that bukkake might be illegal in the United States is a horrible choice, as it does not mention the act and only that a group of films might be considered obscene, which was actually just a trumped up charge to check for tax violations. Therefore, a better citation should be found or that part should be removed. 76.116.109.22120:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could one of the moderators/editors please advise if this page meets the standard to be posted as an external link? As you will see, this page contains many sexual positions without any promotional material (e.g. banners, ads, logos, etc.).
I think there used to be an external links section, the problem is that sometimes certain types of articles the external links section acts as a spam honeypot. While I think external links can often have lots of value to add to an article, in articles such as this one posting a request like what you did here is a good idea. Allows others to discuss it and arrive upon consensus. MathmoTalk21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There are a number of sites that offer users more illustrations and help further understand this subject. Moderators can decide which links should be included. Does anyone have links to include for review? We can forward them together to a moderator for approval. Also helpful would be if anyone knows the process on how to do this. Cutweed14:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are not really moderators as such, rather the point is to achieve consensus amongst the editors. I'm can recall seeing a couple of good sites as external links, but can't recall them off the top of my mind at the moment. If I think of them, I'll mention it here. MathmoTalk00:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also seen external links in the past on this topic; however, they were removed periodically by moderators/editors. On one hand, I respect that they are doing their job in policing wikipedia from bad content; on the other hand, they removed all external links regardless of whether the websitea are relevant or not. I am just trying to get a way to communicate with them so we can come to some kind of agreements. Personally, I think external sources on this topic add greatly to the articles :) I appreciate any suggestions. Thanks, Cutweed16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citations?
My comment is partially in response to the "urban dictionary" post above and partially to the "citation needed" links sprinkled liberally throughout the article. Why are citations needed for most of these, especially some of the common or obvious ones? I don't think we really need a scholarly source to tell us they exist. I'm fairly new to the editing side of wikipedia (despite the creation date of my account being just minutes ago, I've made a number of anonymous contributions before, so I'm not THAT new!), so I'm not really up on the interpretation of policies, but I've read the "verifiable" policy and the "no original research" policy. It seems to me that something that intuitively seems correct and can also be verified with a trivially simple experiment (along the lines of "if I SSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEXXXXXXXXXX drop a dense object, it will fall") shouldn't fall under "original research" and also shouldn't need to be verified with an external source. If there's a consensus that agrees with me, I'll come back and remove a bunch of the citations; if not, then I guess I'll take my opinion to the policy talk pages. In support of my position I offer the discussion here. Yanroy08:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "citation needed"s are there because:
The position is given a name and it is not clear that the name is used by anyone except the person who added it.
There are claims made about the position such as "good for pregnancy" which are not obvious.
Less critically, some positions are marked as needing a citation, in my mind, because it is not clear that they really belong on a list which, by necessity (see top of the article), can only contain the more common positions. Having a mention in a published source would be an indication that they are worth listing. --Strait15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a "This Thread Is Useless Without Pics" type thing. At least, that's what it looks like. :)
Image - Removed
Sorry I reverted the two images that were removed. An automatic reaction to the removal of images by an anon IP. One of them clearly is no longer a valid image. I should have checked that.
The other image, Image:Doublepen.png seems to be a legitimate image. I note that it is from Wikipedia commons, and has a valid GFDL license by user Helmans[1]. It is artwork, and not a picture. It is stylistically different than the other images in that it is coloured, rather than B/W. But seems to be an image directly related to the section that it is in.
I note a discussion related to this image at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Looking_for_guidance. The conversation, IMO, would suggest that ther eis no problem with this image as long as it is not a copyvio. It does not appear to be a copyvio. Am I mistaken? I will return the image once again. We can certainly discuss whether the image is approriate for this section, this article, and stylistically appropriate, or not. Atom18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image indicates it was sourced from the English wikipedia so it obviously has copyright issues. I'm going to hold off discussion about including the image in the article until the image source is provided and the copyright status can be verified. I really never put much weight on the copyright status and verifiability of images but it’s something that should be taken care of before including the image in the article, especially if it has the potential to disrupt the flow of editing or cause edit disputes. --I already forgot18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with determining the copyright status clearly in advance. If it isn't in the article for awhile, I don't think anyone will suffer. They will probably figure out how to do it anyhow. Atom19:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although, I checked out the image pretty throughly. You say that it is sourced form en.wikipedia, and obviously has copyright issues. But, I show that the image we have been talking about Image:Doublepen.png is from Wikipedia Commons. Going to the refeence on Wikipedia Commons[2], shows that it was added by a user "helmans" [3] with no user page, and the only contribution was this image, on 29 June 2006. It shows author as "Cris, Self-made" and has a GFDL[[4]] tag for licensing. I admit the detail is fairly sketchy, but it seems we have done due diligence in determining licensing status, and it is marked clearly licensed under GFDL.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License.
Is there some reason to believe that it is not, in fact GFDL licensed? Does Wikipedia not accept or use GFDL licenses images? Wikipedia:Image_use_policy does not explicitly mention GFDL licensing. However, Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags does explicitly say that an image should have GFDL, cc-by-sa-2.5, or public domain tags. What am I missing here? Why does it have copyright issues? Atom19:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is in fact from wikimedia commons which indicates the source is English wikipedia. English wikipedia is not the source of the image so the proper source needs to be provided. Any person can create an account, upload an image, and tag it with a copyright status. If the user provides the source of the image the copyright status can be verified. Thats my understanding at least. --I already forgot19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I still don't get it. The image is on the commons site, not on en.wikipedia, nor does it say it is on en.wikipedia. It says that the image was created by the downloader, it gives a very explicit GFDL licensing status. The article does list "english Wikipedia" but the author means that it was created FOr the english wikipedia. Regardless of the incorrect usage of that field, it is licensed. Its source is "self-made". It is GFDL licensed by the creator. Wikipedia allows use of GFDL licensed images. That means we have done our due diligence. Atom19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
errr... I don't get what this fuss it about, it ought to be obvious this image is fine. You can't possibly be saying "source must be provided", isn't possible! Or do you want the editor to provide a picture of his/her hand?!?! MathmoTalk20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? How is this hard to understand? Source is not how or by what means the image was created, it’s where the image was attained and where the permission came from. English wikipedia did not provide the image or give permission to use it so the source needs to be provided. If the author of the image is also the source, make it clear that's the case as not all authors of images can give permission to use the work. How is that not clear? Seems like a pretty easy fix by the user??? Anyway, it doesn’t seem to be as big a deal as I was led to believe so the conversation of excluding the image for copyright problems is moot at this point.
On a side note, can I get some background music from The Dwarves on this page? Back seat of my car would work wonderfully with this article...seriously. --I already forgot18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the copyright question is resolved, then I suggest that {{linkimage}} would be the ideal compromise here. We need to think of what will best serve our readers. Some of them will (based upon past experiences from other encyclopedias) expect to be able to read an informative article on sexual positions without encountering drawings or photos that directly portray penetration. Others may be conditioned by the amount of pornography available on-line to expect that we would be pushing the boundaries and allowing this sort of image to remain. Putting the image in the article but behind a single click helps cater to both desired user experiences. Johntex\talk19:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per our guidelines, this artwork does not fit the characteristics for {{linkimage}}, as it is artwork, and not a picture or video. This is obviously a sexually explicit and frank article. The section the image is in is described as multiple penetration, and the artwork is precisely that. Please don't use rhetoric to censor. If you think there is an editorial or licensing reason for not having the image, then let's discuss that. We aren't going to remove the image because you think it is stylistically similar to what you consider to be pornographic. If it meets the miller test for obscenity, then we should remove it. It the image is not appropriate to the content, then let's remove it. If we have a better image that illustrates that section, then let's change it. But, not just because it squicks you, okay? Please see the Wikipedia Content disclaimer again, if you please. Atom19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added Image:DoublePenetration.svg back on to the article. I checked the copyright tag and everything seems good to me. Per above comments: a source is not needed for this image because the image was created by the uploader; there only needs to be a source for an image if it was not self-created. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generalizing
Maybe the original sources don't generalize, but to keep the article consistent, generalizing the positions seems like a good idea. There's no need to keep the descriptions gender specific especially when the article section starts with the words "These positions involve the insertion of a penis or penis-like object (such as a strap-on dildo) into a vagina or anus." If the reader wants to know the original text information, then they can look there. You can't say that the Kama Sutra was written for such instances as when a strap-on or some such is used.
--Zuejay01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll compromise on Burton's "Seventh posture" for the reasons you give. But I think that it is silly to generalize "lateral coital position" or "coital alignment technique" when they are precisely defined terms which specifically refer to penile-vaginal intercourse and do so for particular reasons. This is in contrast with all other positions in this article — even those listed in the Perfumed Garden or Kama Sutra are not defined anywhere near as precisely as these. --Strait04:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I can't say that I've read these texts, that'll have to do. Changing the "Seventh posture" now. Thanks. --Zuejay05:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no name for the double rimming position? It's like a 69 but with rimming instead of oral sex.
I am wondering how one of the positions on the other positions list is possible both partners face the other way top to toe with there legs on each other shoulders. Is this a safe sex position or vandalism? Delighted eyes05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the graphics on this page are of heterosexual couples. This reis totally biased toward heterosexual couples. It is in no way a "neutral" viewpoint. It is a heteronormative viewpoint. I don't know how to flag this article as being not neutral, but its not. {— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.219.71 (talk • contribs)
I agree. There was some discussion a while ago about the text, and that's been apparently solved, but I just had a quick look at the article and there is only one image of a same-sex couple: two women 69ing near the bottom of the page (plus one image of a 3-some with 2 women and a man--tell me that's not heterosexual bias!). Exploding Boy16:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Do you also want to show pictures of necrophilia and bestiality? Seriously, being neutral does not mean displaying images that most people find objectionable and offensive. The article, as it is now, already has a disproportionate bias towards homosexuality with its use of phrases like "penetrating partner" and "receiving partner." With language like that, it reads as if the primary audience is homosexual. I see from the above comment that it probably used to say "man" and "woman," but some people believed those words were somehow inaccurate. I am of the opinion that in order to be neutral and unbiased, our emphasis on alternative sexualities should be relatively proportionate to the population of their practitioners. BryanKaplan02:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just compare homosexuality to necrophilia? Luckily your personal opinion of homosexuality, objectionable as it is, has no bearing on the content of Wikipedia articles. Exploding Boy03:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand. I never stated my irrelevant opinion of homosexuality; rather I was observing the article's bias towards homosexuality. I mentioned necrophilia because it too is an alternative approach to human sexuality, one which must have it's own unique set of sexual positions. While it would be appropriate to make a *brief* mention those positions in this particular article, it would be awfully wrong to show pictures of it, or to spend very much time talking about it. I recognize that both necrophilia and bestiality are more offensive than homosexuality to just about everyone, but I used those examples to make a point. The point was *not* that I oppose homosexuality or homosexual content in this article; the point was that it should *not* be the emphasis of this article. To the contrary, the percentage of the article that addresses homosexual positions should be roughly proportionate to the percentage of humans who care to engage in homosexual sex. That would be unbiased. BryanKaplan11:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm assuming good faith here, but I fail to see how increasing the number of images of same sex partners in this article from the current one would constitute a lack of neutrality. Given that there are very few positions that are exclusive to homo or hetero sex, there should be a variety of images. Exploding Boy01:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article Homosexuality, homosexuals account for 1%-10% of the population. Right now there are 17 total pictures, 1 of which is homosexual: that's 5.8%. Adding another would mean a disproportionate bias towards homosexuality. Furthermore, many heterosexuals in th 90%-99% group will find additional homosexual imagery to be unexpected, objectionable, and offensive. Given that there are very few positions that are exclusive to homo or hetero sex, why should homosexual imagery be disproportionately emphasized? BryanKaplan03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually go to that link for the wikipedia entry on homosexuality, the statistic of 1-10% says "citation needed", so those numbers have no weight. Basically, anyone could've made up that number and put it in wikipedia. 21:36, 27 June 2007
You can debate the exact specifics of the numbers down to the last decimal point, but regardless the general gist and point of the previous editor should be clear. Which is: "Each viewpoint is currently being fairly represented, to do anything else than fairly represent them is naturally unfair instead." Do correct me BryanKaplan if I have incorrectly paraphrased you. MathmoTalk03:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think that's utter nonsense. Wikipedia isn't bowlderized, and it's not censored to protect the sensibilities of those who might find drawings of same-sex people engaging in sex objectionable. 05:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
" Furthermore, many heterosexuals in th 90%-99% group will find additional homosexual imagery to be unexpected, objectionable, and offensive." Can you offer a properly cited source that states that "many heterosexuals" find homosexual acts offensive? You are projecting your views onto a public that might not agree with you. Emerald80721:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't homosexual images be equally represented? I get the sense that this discussion has become circular, and therefore unproductive. Exploding Boy21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Emerald807: You may be right. It's a very difficult thing to measure of course. Nonetheless my point that adding more homosexual images would be disproportionately biased is much easier to measure, as you can see from my above math. EDIT: No actually there is hard data, and I am correct: most people find homosexuality to be offensive -- see this pdf for evidence. BryanKaplan01:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exploding Boy: Please don't answer my question with another question. This conversation can be productive if we are all willing to honestly consider one another's point of view. By asking my still-unanswered question I am trying to find out whether or not you understand my point of view. Do you understand what I mean when I say "disproportionate?" BryanKaplan01:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can we prevent this from turning into a lame "pro-gay/anti-gay" argument? I do not want to censor Wikipedia, and I do not oppose homosexual content in this article. To the contrary, I want to help keep Wikipedia neutral. Does anyone understand my statement regarding disproportionate emphasis? If so, do you disagree with it? If so why? BryanKaplan03:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to avoid this becoming "pro-gay/anti-gay" argument, it would be best to refrain from making statements such as "most people find homosexuality to be offensive". As wikipedia is not censored or bowdlerized, such statements are not relevant and instead are inflammatory.
That being said, I do agree that the majority of the images on this page should be heterosexual, however a couple more images featuring same sex couples would help the article better illustrate the range and variety found in human sex acts. Neitherday05:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The American Enterprise Institute? Architects of the GW Bush administrations public policy? Please. That is hardly a neutral source. Plus that study is nearly four years old. And even if it were current and reliable, it still wouldn't make any difference or have any bearing on the number of images of same-sex sex in this article or on Wikipedia. I can't stress enough that such arguments simply don't stand up to our policies.
There's no legitimate reason to limit the number of images of same-sex sex in this article. Besides not complying with our policies, I think BryanKaplan's formula--extrapolating from a best guess of the number of homosexuals to a percentage of images on this article--is just silly. I also fail to see why the "majority" of images should be heterosexual, but that's not particularly at issue here at present. Exploding Boy05:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no legitimate reason to limit the number of images of *necrophile* sex in this article. Besides not complying with our policies, I think Exploding Boy's formula--describing an article with a homosexual bias as being heterosexually biased--is just silly. I also fail to see why the "majority" of images should be of living people, but that's not particularly at issue here at present. BryanKaplan09:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Randomly? The words were systematically replaced, and if you reread it you'll see it makes perfect sense. It's a parody, a light-hearted attempt to poke fun at Exploding Boy's activist attitude. I also added a relevant link you may have missed. BryanKaplan18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought necrophiliac sex would use more or less the same positions as normal sex, and hence would not require any special illustration, but I digress. The article currently doesn't contain a single picture of a gay/lesbian couple engaged in penetrative sex. Given that it includes an image of simultaneous anal/vaginal penetration (which I venture to say is probably less common out there in the wild than good old-fashioned gay anal sex), the article ought to be more representative of gay sex. Clearly the purpose of the article is to give an idea of the range of different sex positions, not to show their statistical distribution. Cadr03:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your first sentence ("I would have thought necrophiliac sex..."), you don't digress whatsoever; follow your thought to its logical conclusion: "Therefore, I would have thought homosexual sex would use more or less the same positions as normal sex, and hence would not require any special illustration." Sure, 85% of the illustrations could depict dead people, but that would be ridiculous. Why? Because a) a very small percentage of the overall population engages in necrophilia, b) pictures of it are offensive to most of the rest of us, and c) necrophiliac pictures wouldn't add anything to the diversity of positions represented. The same logic applies to pictures of homosexual sex. BryanKaplan00:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, neither of (a), (b) are true in the case of homosexuality, so the same logic doesn't apply. As for (c), the article currently depicts a number of heterosexual sex acts which are considerably less common than ordinary gay sex. Cadr17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to explodingboy's statement: "There's no legitimate reason to limit the number of images of same-sex sex in this article". Yes there, it is what we like to call here.... NPOV. It seems you are failing to see the point being made by BryanKaplan, so I shall make it more obvious for you. What if all images on the page are of homosexual couples? What is wrong with this? Hopefully you can clearly see this situation is very wrong, because of giving undue weight to homosexuality. Which as I point out before breaks the fundamental wikipedia policy of NPOV. Now, take what you have learnt from this example and apply it to the current situation. The same general principles apply of upholding NPOV. MathmoTalk04:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man argument: I'm pretty sure exploding boy was not advocating that all heterosexual imagery in the article replaced with same-sex couples. Their position seems to be simply that there should be no artificial limits. Neitherday04:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can change the title to "List of heterosexual sex positions". OR, if its not done yet, someone can upload more homosexual images on this page. and see if it gets removed. just a suggestion. kawaputratok2me15:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure segregation is the best solution, especially since there's nothing significantly heterosexual nor homosexual about any of the positions. If homosexual images are added, I will not personally change or remove any, since my voice has been so strongly opposed, and since no one is speaking out in agreement with me. I will merely continue to state my opinion that this article is biased in favor of an activist cause. BryanKaplan16:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that pictures depicting homosexual acts have no advantage over those showing a hetrosexual act. While it may alert people to a more realistic spread of homosexual/hetrosexual activities, i wouldn't take out a hetrosexual picture and plop in a homosexual one. Same goes for the reverse. How offensive an article is should not have any bearing in wikipedia. --206.116.159.19902:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe there should be no artificial limit on the number of same-sex images, I don't think either same-sex images or heterosexual images should be used if there is an image available that is ambiguous and therefore can represent both. The image I have suggested using for fellatio was designed intentionally to have the performing partner be gender ambiguous and I believe in light of the current controversies on this talk page that makes it a better choice. Neitherday17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem is that the person performing fellatio in Image A is clearly a woman. All of her features are feminine, she appears to be wearing makeup, has no adam's apple, and has breasts. Besides which, the image replaced by this one (showing two men) was added in response to the discussion above, which is a neutrality dispute based on the dearth of same-sex images on the page. Exploding Boy17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no makeup and the breasts could just as easily be pecs. The beauty of the image is that the sex of the performing partner can easily be seen however the viewer wants to see it. Neitherday22:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, the real challenge would be to find one where the sex of the receiving partner was open to interpretation ;) Cadr12:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the neutrality argument above as valid at this point in regards to non-penetrative positions, as all the non-penetrative images currently depict same-sex couples. Unless you can present a valid reason all non-penetrative pictures need to be clearly same-sex (this image isn't clearly either and could be taken either way), I'm re-adding the image. While I agree the article should be balanced, unbalancing the article in one direction isn't any better than it being unbalanced in the other. A major priority of this article should be to show variety. Neitherday01:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the non-penetrative positions are not currently illustrated with same-sex images. Please don't re-add the image or I will have to restore the neutrality tag. Exploding Boy01:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the sole arbiter of neutrality and you do not own this article. Please explain why no images in the section non-penetrative positions section of the article can be ambiguous and all must be clearly same sex.
The current Non-penetrative positions section has only one image (and it's a same-sex one, yes). As discussed at length above, the neutrality problem with this article was the lack of clear same-sex images. Since all the penetrative iamges are unambiguously opposite-sex, what exactly is the problem with having unambiguously same-sex images? I mean, unless somebody creates abstract images to illustrate the article then most of them are not going to be ambiguous (and certainly I still challenge the claim that the fellater in the image to the right is ambiguous; it's clearly a woman). Exploding Boy01:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question is, I don't think anyone has a problem with unambiguously opposite-sex images in the article; is there some reason that you ojbect to unambiguously same-sex images? Exploding Boy01:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
penetrative imageYou are correct. I didn't notice oral sex was a separate section (which is it should be).
I don't have a problem with unambiguously same-sex images. However I believe this article should first and foremost be about illustrating the scope of human sexuality. For example, a woman using a strap-on (either on another woman or on a man) would be an improvement, because it would add to the scope of illustrated penetrative behaviours. I believe the image I'm suggesting here does a better job at embracing the scope of human sexuality than the one that is there now. Neitherday01:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a woman using a strap-on would be a good addition; maybe there's one at Commons? And you're right; one of the images of penetrative sex depicts a same-sex couple.
I'm not sure I understand your concern regarding the fellatio image, however. After all, further down in the article this image unambiguously depicts a woman performing fellatio. Surely with the existing images we've covered all the bases? Exploding Boy02:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what is wrong with the ambiguous image... it creates no bias towards either heterosexuals or homosexuals, and if someone is disgusted with homosexuality they can just see it as a woman... there is no problem with it, and in my opinion the only sort of person who would find it wrong to put it in there in place of an unambiguous gay couple would be someone trying to jam gay rights down everybody's throats... i support the reimplementation of the ambiguous-gender image, and if i knew how to I would personally restore it... and i would like it restored... my two cents, thank you 203.164.63.18911:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality tag removed
I've removed the neutrality tag. Out of 15 images currently in the article, 5 are of same-sex couples in a variety of positions, and a further 2 feature mixed-sex threesomes. I think this satisfies the neutrality requirement. Exploding Boy01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that's right. At least, according to the image caption, though I'd say it's debatable. It's by no means clear that the person on the lower right is female (and the sex of the person on the lower left is debatable too, in my opinion). I'm going to change the caption to be less specific. Exploding Boy01:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
image proportions
i agree that it is biased to have only images of heterosexual intercourse on this page and I am glad that homosexual behavior has been added, but a quick count indicates that 6 of the 15 images are exclusively of homosexual sex. In recognition of the "undue weight" doctrine, it seems a little excessive to have 40% of the images show only homosexual activity. I don't know off hand what percentage of the world's population is of what sexual orientation, but I would venture an educated guess that far less than 40% are homosexual or bisexual. How about either adding some more images of heterosexuality or reducing the number of homosexual ones to a proportion that reflects prevalence in society? This has absolutely nothing to do with bias against homosexuality and I would suggest the opposite if the situation were reversed, but I think it adds to wikipedia's credibility to try make its image counts reflect statistics.
In response to an earlier post about showing a woman penetrating her partner with a strap-on, again I would cite the "undue weight" concept that this sexual activity is not common enough to warrant a separate picture on what is otherwise a broad survey of sexuality. The same would go for many other sexual activities that are uncommon, to list and picture every single one would be impractical. They properly belong on their own pages with perhaps a link from this one.
I'm thinking it might be a good idea to split the page into "sexual intercourse" positions and "sexual acts" or some other way of dividing the material (maybe penetrative vs. non-penetrative). This would give more room for the many behaviors that receive only a cursory treatment here.
Thanks
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ←BenB410:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semiprotect?
We get several incidents of vandalism each day, but the basic content is not all that different from six months ago. Thanks to my vast experience with the subject, I can say we have covered all of the essential topics, and if there is anything IPs have to add, they can tell us here on talk. Anyone against semiprotection? ←BenB403:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not protect all porn article because the average one has not changed "much" since 6 months ago? This seems like the start of a slippery to me. Best not to go to far away from our general concept of "anyone can edit". Though I'm certain you said this with absolutely the best intentions, and I can totally understand (and even agree) where you are coming from... I just can't at the moment agree with your conclusion. So I'm having a tendency here towards preferring to leaving it as it is. MathmoTalk07:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that IP users haven't contributed anything but vandalism and hoaxes, as far as I can tell. Plus, this isn't exactly porn. ←BenB415:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I was surprised it hadn't been protected before. It struck me that something must be unique about this article and its' protection status (similar to the main page), but after getting a sanity check from some other people it appeared that I was wrong in assuming this.
So, anyways, it's been semi-protected for two months. If there is indeed a special circumstance for this article (I remember reading something unique about its' reading/editing rate, but can't put my finger on it), which means I shouldn't have semi-protected it, I encourage any other administrator to remove the protection.
That being said, please don't bug me to remove it on the basis that you don't think it was warranted. I disagree, hence my action. In addition, if there is a special circumstance for this article, please request unprotection centrally, because I won't be overturning my own protection in this case. The more eyes, the better. Cheers, Daniel→♦07:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest that this topic moved to the Sex Wiki, and be removed from Wikipedia? I don't see a place for this or other related articles in a website used by school children. Additionally, I'm sure that those that follow and enhance this and related articles would prefer an area where they can create more articles and not be restrained.
I can't in my right conscience recommend Wikipedia as long as articles like this are included. I would also like to request that sex articles be included in the predefined list of candidate articles for deletion on the Deletion Policy page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.148.213 (talk) 03:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
I'm in support for NOT removing this or any other sex related articles. Neitherday is correct, Wikipedia is not bowdlerized and this is perfectly acceptable contact for any encyclopedia. Sex is human nature in all it's forms, and furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored for "school children" or anyone else. Besides, although they are children, this gives them a non-pornographic, neutral way to understand the physics of different sexual positions. What if one day they injure themselves by preforming something painful, like hamster style, or kenneth Pinyan style? Donny41717:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't in my right conscience recommend Wikipedia as long as articles like this are included." Then don't recommend it. But that's your problem, not ours.
"I would also like to request that sex articles be included in the predefined list of candidate articles for deletion on the Deletion Policy page." Why? Because you say so? Because it "offends your conscience"?. If you are going to make such a request, then at least back it up with strong arguments. What goes into Wikipedia is still determined by consensus.
This article is neither pornographic nor repugnant. Therefore it is perfectly suitable for educating schoolchildren above a certain age. Younger schoolchildren shouldn't be using Wikipedia anyhow. Cambrasa12:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone has reached a concencus that this post should not be taken off. Wikipedia is not censored, even if potential harm can come from it being uncensored. The pictures are not repulsive, and are quite obviously not for a pornograhpic purpose, meaning it stays within wikipedias bounds. Another reason not to censor it is because it is not clear how the pictures would harm children in the first place, not that it matters due to WP:NOTCENSORED. Finally, your opinion of an article like this does not come above wikipedia policy, even if this could possibly detract potential users. And individually, i think that this encyclopedia would go downhill the day it censored itself to make most people happy. --206.116.159.19901:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JimQ: Done. BUT, looking at the edit history (every edit individually), and the reliability of the references, I question the validity of that article. I made a couple minor mods to it ad re-added the hoax tag, because something as unrealistic-sounding as that (from a physics of anatomy standpoint) I think would need to be mightily referenced. Some others may agree, some may disagree. FWIW, I am going to leave the page alone after this fix for you, but wanted to let you know. VigilancePrime (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Homosexuals Like Oral A Bit Much?
Why is it that all of the images under oral sex appear to be homosexual couples?
There seems to be a couple too many homosexual images in the entire article as it is.
As this article deals with sexual positions only and nearly all these positions can be performed by any couple regardless or orientation, methinks the number of homoesexual pictures should reflect reality and be proportionate to the number of homosexuals.
Use articles like Sexual orientation to demonstrate the variety of sexual orientations and leave this article to only show the variety of positions with only a few homosexual images instead of the current number. This page is not here to reflect "the range and variety found in human sex acts", only the range and variety of sexual positions. 71.120.201.3920:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a few references to the "French Butterfly" position in porn site honeypots, and one mention in a story, but no definition. Help?
Finding a cite for Polish (as in Poland) is a little tricky since it's a homonym for polish (as in one's knob). Help welcome; I'll drop a cite tag on it. I encountered it in a men's magazine about twenty years ago.
There is a large section of the page that appears below the References section, in the same small print as the References. When I tried to edit the page, it seemed to be in the correct order, so I don't know how to fix it. Will someone with more editing experience fix this?
--mlesage (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gustav Klint picture
This picture seems a little out of place in its current location. Compared to the rest of the images, it's a style break, and it's kind of hard to see what's "going on" in the picture (does the guy have a head somewhere?), making it a poor choice for an illustrative example. The image on top should be switched with this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.69.246 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
_Hadrian_and_Antinous_in_Egypt.jpg)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Doublepen.png){kind=link}
