Talk:Non-penetrative sex

Too expplicit!!!!

Mammary intercourse photo drawing is is a bit too explicit find another that does not show the act of ejaculation. If the person who needs pictures like these... there are many to be found and you can easily save it for your your computer for easy constant viewing.

This is supposed to be like an encyclopedia. When I was 12 there were no sex book resource books, encyclopedia or human development books showing ejacualtion or men ejaculating on women

1) Wikipedia isn't censored.

2) The internet is very difficult to censor even partly. The number of proxies by which a person can enter the webpages means little content is bannable.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Dry sex

Discussion is taking place on Talk:Dry sex. Please post any comments there, not here. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal (Copied from Talk:Frottage)

It is my understanding that the three terms have slightly different meanings. My definitions are written from a United States perspective, I'd be interested to hear from Gillyweed and others what the words mean in the UK, Australia, and elsewhere. In the US...

• Mutual masturbation almost always means "rubbing someone else's unclothed genitals with your hand(s), while they rub yours". Mutual masturbation usually does not include dry-humping, and it never includes oral sex or genital-genital rubbing.

• Outercourse usually means "getting yourself and someone else off without penetration or exchange of body fluids". Outercourse can involve rubbing your genitals anywhere on someone else's body, except on their genitals. Some definitions of outercourse include oral sex, some do not. Outercourse generally does not include genital-genital rubbing, it would only include it if a barrier method is used. The word "outercourse" is typically usually used in the context of enjoying sex while avoiding the swapping of bodily fluids, in an attempt to avoid STDs and pregnancy. See Joycelyn Elders.

• Frottage is a word that is not used in the US. From reading the article, frottage seems to include all of the activity of "outercourse", but frottage can also include genital-genital rubbing such as tribadism or frot (words also not used in the US).

(I'll also throw in the phrase Dry-humping, which incidentally redirects to Frottage): I don't know if this term is used outside the US, but it almost always means rubbing your genitals against someone else's genitals while both people are clothed.

I do support a merge of the three articles, because they are so similar. Perhaps, as Simon Speed said, we can merge at non-penetrative sex. This one seems to be the least geographically-specific, if only because it's so formal that no one uses it. However, I think we should include a section for each term, describing each term's specific meaning. Joie de Vivre 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I found another one: Sumata, a Japanese term. Joie de Vivre 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I Think that's relatively specific - penis to hands, thighs and labia. It's got a link from "see also" in the Frottage article but isn't mentioned under Outercourse or Mutual masturbation.--Simon Speed 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I only brought it up because you asked if anyone knew of "any more" -- I took that to mean "any more related or similar terms that could possibly be considered in the merge". I'm still not sure what to do here. Joie de Vivre 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I cobbled the pages together to make non-penetrative sex and did a bit of editing. A picture has yet to be allowed. Have a look and change stuff.--Simon Speed 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So it's done. Everybody please improve the new page (or undo all the redirects and nomitate it for deletion!!!!). I think it helps having all this stuff on one page, but it could do with reorganising. And we need some more references. --Simon Speed 23:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

Here we go again. Explicit images removed from a sex page, the justification this time being "quality". And a delete tag added to one of the images even though it's being used on another page.

The 2 images are the only ones of the subjects they illustrate. We need explicit sexual information on a sex page, especially one dealing with safe sex practices, just as we need explicit scientific information on a science page. There are some fine artistic images here and the Persian one is especially beautiful, but it's so inexplicit you can't tell the gender of the lovers. If we must reduce the number of pictures (and I don't see why) we should keep the most explicit (i.e. informative). This is a sex article on a (supposedly) non-censored encyclopedia. --Simon Speed 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid slapping heavy stickers here. My concern is very specific: self-drawn pictures of dubious quality. The criterion is one and the same for whole wikipedia: notability and verifiability. If you were a famous artist or at least a doctor, I had no objections to your drawings. My dislike of having wikimedia littered with uploads of personal penises has nothing to do with censorship. `'mikka 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The heavy sticker labels the thing for what it is. Censorship is censorship and the Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored. I am not a famous anything, quite true, but hardly relevant as I haven't drawn any of the pictures on Wikipedia. They have been produced by various Wikipedians, in quite a critical and demanding climate, to illustrate subjects that the concensus accepted needed illustrating. People have tried producing photographs, but these have been controversial, heavily supported for being good and explicit but also looking like modern web pornograpy with its bad associations. It would be nice if our illustrators could all be Goyas and Rembrandts, but they're not, neither are most professional technical illustrators: please remember this is an encyclopedia.

And pictures of the penis? It's a part of the body. It's in the encyclopedia. Have a look at the title of the article you're reading.--Simon Speed 01:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't panic. You convinced me that drawings are better than photos or famous artists. Next time start from serious arguments than from accusations. Peace. And pictures of penis? They are also part of trolling. `'mikka 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Sorry, I did go a bit over the top. On most pages adding explicit sexual content is a favourite way to vandalise them, but it sometimes seems a battle trying to keep content on the sex pages. --Simon Speed 11:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

On pages discussing murder, are you going to add illustrations of various ways to kill people? I have removed two pornographic "illustrations" depicting immoral actions that likewise fail to improve this article. We have an obligation to stop pornography (it is gravely immoral), not to find reasons to paste it wherever possible. Pornographic images from renown artists might be justifiable if the artistic value, culture, anthropology, historical impact, etc. adds to the article. -- Newagelink (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

And I have restored the images. Wikipedia is not censored. The accusations of "pornography" (though they would not justify removal) are simply false: both images were created for educational purposes by Wikimedians. Your comparison of safe sex to murder and use of the terms "immoral" and "sodomy" (in the edit summary), give the lie to any arguments you make. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are irrational: Of what lie are you accusing me? I also see no "consensus" on this page that the pornographic images are good or useful contributions -- rather, it seems more are concerned about it being "too explicit" than not. Can you refer me to Wikipedia resources that substantiate your claims that removing the images would be bad censorship and against the ethos of Wikipedia? It is still clear to me that removing the unneeded pornography increases the quality of the article.

Furthermore, your Wikipedia Is Not Censored motto supports my conclusion: I quote: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." I have argued from the beginning that the pornographic images I have removed have added nothing to the article (the text already sufficiently describes the action), unlike the pornographic images whose authors have some historic or cultural significance. -- Newagelink (talk)

It seems to me that you are censoring these pictures because you find them immoral. Everyone's morals are different, and if everyone removed pictures/text that they find immoral, quite a few large chunks of wikipedia would be censored. Look at the repeated removal of images of Muhammad. Personally I find many aspects of Christianity immoral, should I remove bits I disagree with? Martin451 (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize the above is a rhetorical question, but when rhetorical questions are put forward in order to make a flawed argument, it may still make sense to answer them. A good answer can be found, by those who want to find it, on this page (s.v. "The Well-Disguised Atheist").

I have no issue with the selection of images on this page. But would you put forward the same argument of "censorship" on the masturbation page? Because that one looks as it it was illustrated by people who enjoy uploading "encyclopedic" images of themselves --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics

I removed the following line items from the Metaphor section; They belong in a separate Cultural References section, but I don't think there are enough to warrant putting it there. Also, the quotation from Rent is just plain wrong; the line is "mucho masturbation".

• The lyrics of Dazz Band's song Joystick are suggestive of mutual masturbation.

• The band Circle Jerks were named after a slang phrase for mutual male masturbation.

• The lyrics of the musical RENT include "mutual masturbation" in a long list of other words and phrases.

• The Barenaked Ladies song, In The Car, refers to mutual masterbation. "In the Car. It was mostly mutual masturbation. And though we spoke of penetration, I'd have to wait for someone else to try it out."

Free 18:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Archives

I've added an archive here, moving the old archive from Outercourse since that article has been redirected here, and archiving the remaining conversations from its Talk page (which did not get moved/merged here). -- Kesh 03:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad Picture

yes the forttage photo is bad and not just that, the caption says frottage is (just) for a male couple, which isn't true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.46.254 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

don`t ever show the frottage photo again with the those 2 men .... it`s bad... limuniu 17:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.221.225 (talk)

Wikipedia is not censored --Simon Speed (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Mammary intercourse picture is hideous. It should be replaced or dumped.--24.15.11.254 15:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to supply a free replacement, then? "I don't like it" isn't much of a reason to remove the image. -- Kesh 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but "it's unencyclopaedic since it's overtly pornographic" is. Exploding Boy 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Overtly" as opposed to "covertly"? Does the picture really have a connection to the sex industry? And does it make this connection explicit as opposed to implicit? "Overtly" here is just being used to mean "very much" and "pornographic" to mean "disliked by me", no reason to remove a picture. --Simon Speed 19:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL. Exploding Boy 16:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK OK - I've toned it down a little, but it was hardly a personal attack. --Simon Speed 00:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against sex or images of sex. In fact, I voted in support of keeping an image on the Autofellatio article. But this image is unencyclopaedic. It goes way beyond simply illustrating a sex position. Exploding Boy 00:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is up to you to state what is actually wrong with the picture. I believe it was created by a Wikipedia editor for the purpose of illustration. It generates a lot of hostility, I think, because its sexual explicitness is combined with a direct stare into the face of the viewer (a challenge for humans and throughout much of the animal kingdom and a device that has been used in a number of important artworks). Added to that is the naive cartoonlike (and perhaps slightly amateurish) quality. None of these things add up to pornography. A few people have tried to modify the image, particularly by chopping off the head, changes which have made the image worse rather than better. I think most people would like some nineteenth century erotic art (or pornography!), skillfully drawn, with a sympathetic view of the human body. But we have none illustrating the subject. --Simon Speed 19:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was pornography, I said it was pornographic. Add to what you've stated above the expression on the woman's face, her makeup and nails, and the entire setup of the image. There are much more encyclopedic ways of illustrating even that sex position. Exploding Boy 15:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Her nails! Her makeup! The expression on her face!!! (Should she, perhaps, be more submissive?). Whatever, "pornographic" here means "not liked by me". --Simon Speed 11:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're being unnecessarily sarcastic and argumentative, which isn't helping the discussion. Exploding Boy 19:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The picture is fine, leave it there, however you should also add links to www.thehun.com and www.hardcore seximagesforperverts.com too. You guysreally think that these images are actually adding value? So in order for me to know how to have proper intercourse, I guess now I need illustrations. How about the first human beings? Did they need illustrations to learn how to have sex or safe sex? No, because these things come natrualy to human beings. you sick perverts

They didn't have safe sex.

• Sick perverts... this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia contains knowledge. In the form of text, pictures, sound, and sometimes video if it's an electronic encyclopedia (See Wikipedia). for those of you complaining about This image is bad, this imagei s innapropriate. Remember.

1. A. You might not like it, but you aren't everybody see WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
2. B. Your reasons might have value. And if so, please state them. But do not try and remove na image because it's immoral or innapropriate or 'harmful to minors'. These three are opinions, NOT necessarily facts.
3. C. For those who say it goes to far. Illustrates more than is talked about. I.E. sex or a sexual position. Remember, sex doesn't normally take place in an isolation tank. There will be external objects, stimuli, and the people having sex aren't exactly stone faced robots. Sex is enjoyable, a good illustration relating to sex conveys that fact .(Unless it's an article on rape).
4. D. For those objecting on grounds that it's innapropriate for children. Please listen.

• If the minor came here on purpose. They want information, 99.999% of kids will not be damaged in ANY way by seeing an illustration of a primal activity. The other .001% of kids who are possibly damaged are likely mentally traumatized, sociopathic, or something else that we can't avoid (see shit happens), and shouldn't be on the internet in the first place if they somehow by freak accident can be damaged by 'images of a sexual nature'.

Thank you for your attention on this issue Nateland 18:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have about 500 alternative images I could use to replace the image in question that are also drawings and still far more attractive. Coolgamer (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Great, upload them all (or at least the best ones) to the Wikimedia Commons. But please make sure they have free licenses (or are marked as in the Public Domain) and that this is honest and legal (you can't copy someone else's work without their permission) or they will get deleted. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I could probably get permission from a hentai company that I know... it would be a game screenshot, copyrighted, and probably low-res. How would I set up that permission? Getting the limited rights is no problem, but how will I have to prove the permission? Coolgamer (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Limited rights are no good, content has to be free for any purpose including commercial use and free to modify, so it has to be supplied under a free license such as the GFDL. See Commons:Licensing for further info. Unlicensed images are allowed on the Wikipedia under US Fair Use laws, but only if no free licensed alternative is available. If you can get the copyright holder to agree to a free license then upload the image, add a note to this effect and get them to email their permission to the OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). --Simon Speed (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe there is actual debate over the legitimacy of this picture. Its horribly grotesque and every time I see it I simply laugh out loud over how ridiculous it is. It just distracts from the information (then again, perhaps it adds to the page because who really reads this page for any reason other than some easy wiki comedy?)--24.12.66.162 (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Problems I have with the 'Mammary Intercourse Illustration:' 1. It is unnecessary. The sentence description listed next to 'mammary intercourse' illustrates the act well enough that anyone with a second grade vocabulary and reading comprehension can visualize the act. Not every example needs to be illustrated visually, especially when written descriptions suffice. This is an encyclopedia, not an illustrated guide. 2. The illustration, while well drawn, is a poor one for the subject it supposedly describes- it isn't illustrating the performance of the act itself, instead it is illustrating the results of the act. 3. There is absolutely no reason at all to show ejaculate in the illustration.

--Motemeal (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sexism?

I think the picture for "mammary intercourse" is extremely sexist. It portrays the man as only a penis. I recommend replacing it with a picture that shows the faces of both partners, or does not show the faces of either of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.222 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 17 September 2009

Poor Wording

With oral sex, there is a higher risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV) than with other forms of outercourse, but studies have shown, so far, that there is less chance of getting these diseases through oral sex than with intercourse[4].

That sentence makes absolutely no sense- it contradicts itself quite obviously. If someone with greater knowledge than me could correct it, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.50.210 (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not contradictory - just poorly written. What the author is saying (simplified) is that, with regard to STD's, oral sex is more risky than non-penetrative sex, but less risky than intercourse. Kentmale69 (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of New Image Under MM

I reverted the edit that added this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SamMaleStrip.jpg It certainly doesn't represent mutual masturbation and I have a sneaking suspicion that it was intended to be a joke. If I have done wrong, please let me know! DeeKenn (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, it illustrates a partial handjob in a sex show and I don't think it adds much to the illustrations already here. That said we should see it as a good faith edit and thank the editor who added it for trying to improve the article. If somebody provides what are generally accepted as better illustrations, we might remove the ones we are using at the moment. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Footjob discussion

The only non-penetrative sexual activity on the list which lacks a wikilink is Footjob, because it is currently redirected to here. I am changing the redirect and restoring the wikilink here, but I would encourage a discussion of the eventual content of Footjob on that page's talk page. Please put any discussion there. Thanks -- 192.115.133.116 (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing I noticed is that it states it is performed on the male genitals. Footjobs may be performed on either gender, so this should be changed. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Behind the knee and on the stomach?

I don't know how often this is practiced, but the act of sexual rubbing the penis against the stomach or navel (usually of large women), or behind the knee, IS performed. Should they be mentioned or are they too obscure? There is also the issue of there not being a technical or generally accepted term (as far as I know) of these types of outercourse. 66.142.191.132 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

They should be mentioned if you can find sources for them. The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only courses I know of are videos in which the act is being performed, and a porno video hardly qualifies as a source. I don't think there are websites in which it is being discussed in a non-erotic manner.66.142.188.93 (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Frottage.jpg

I just reverted the removal of this drawing by a vandal. My change was then reverted, presumably by an editor who considers explicit images to be vandalism. Please note that this is the only male-male image on the page. I ask that editors who do not like the picture discuss the fact here and suggest replacement images. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Circle Jerks Redirect?

Shouldn't we have one of those redirect things, I accidentilly put in Circle Jerk so shouldn't it say

"Circle Jerk" redirects here. For the american hardcore punk group, see Circle Jerks.

Please sign your comments. But yes, I agree, I have changed the "Circle jerk" redirect to be a disambiguation page. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Do Circle Jerks include mutual masturbation? I've never been to one but I thought the guys masturbated themselves. This is not explained in the article, nor is the term even used, even though it's so popular a popular band has the name. (Looks like even that article doesn't explain what it means.) Do I have to start that article myself or can someone more familiar with the topic at least create a section in here?? Here's a good reference for starters, from a book about the Boy Scouts at this link. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say it should be put somewhere in this article. I wouldn't say it needs a whole section, though. And I'm not sure if it's notable enough to have an article on it, per WP:Notability. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

G0ys.org Quality Concern

Is there a better page to link to on the subject? The g0ys.org page reads like one long rant. A poorly written, in need of spell-checking, reliant on fallacious linguistic arguments and inept comparisons, poorly-laid out, rant. In places it's even written as if the author were trying to avoid a chat-room swear filter. I'd like to know more about the subject, but I can't make myself trust a website that has this many problems. 68.112.168.240 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tough to find info, but there's an article on the subject at associated content called the G0y Manifesto, would have linked but it's blacklisted I guess.

67.165.221.2 (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation on Pregnancy Risk

Are there any??? 124.83.60.100 (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oral sex should be listed or not?

I noticed some time ago that someone removed oral sex from this article as non-penetrative. But shouldn't it be added back, since oral sex can also be non-penetrative (as in a woman's clitoris being sexually stimulated by the mouth)? After all, this article also lists fingering as non-penetrative, when, really, it can be penetrative as well. If we are saying that in cases where fingering is penetrative, it is rather known as digital penetration, I cannot agree. Most people refer to all fingering, whether penetrative or not, as fingering. In fact, I feel that most people relate fingering as penetrative. Flyer22 (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it should be brought back--Scorpio95 12:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 (talk • contribs)

Anyone else have any thoughts about this before I go adding it back? In addition, so that it is specified right off the bat...for the lead part of the article where it states "as opposed to intercourse, anal sex, or oral sex," I am thinking of putting "oral sex may or may not be penetrative" in parentheses right after it (like we did with the Sexual intercourse article). Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's definitely a gray area. There are conflicting definitions depending on what perspective you want to base your conclusion. For example, from a legal standpoint, many jurisdictions explicitly define oral sex (both fellatio and cunnilingus) as "sexual penetration". With "sexual penetration" commonly being defined as: sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, or any other intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person's body or of any object into the genital or anal openings of the victim's, the defendant's, or any other person's body, but emission of semen is not required.

So from a common sense approach, I concur that oral sex can be performed without penetration. Yet its inclusion in this article would have to include several caveats. -SeedFeeder (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Seedfeeder. What several caveats do you think would be needed? As I made clear above, it was listed in this article before; I'm too lazy these days to go and check who removed it from this article and what, if any, reason they may have given in their edit summary for the removal. But like we have stated, oral sex can be non-penetrative; due to this, it seems a little odd that it is not in the article. As I stated, most people automatically think of fingering as penetrative (from what I have seen/heard over the years), and yet it is in this article because it can also be non-penetrative. I am hoping to get different ideas on how to work oral sex back into this article as being non-penetrative. But, really, I do not see it as that big of a problem. As people can conclude that fingering is not always penetrative, surely they can conclude that oral sex is not always penetrative either. And even if some cannot, we would state that it "may or may not be penetrative" (as I suggested above). Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a simple solution would be to separate the list into acts that are exclusively non-penetrative from the ones that may be non-penetrative depending on technique. -SeedFeeder (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Should we gain consensus from other editors overseeing this article before doing so? I would think that they see this discussion if they are watching the article, though. Flyer22 (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I say just go for it. WP:BOLD -SeedFeeder (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You would rather I do it, Seedfeeder? Do you have any suggestions for how I should title the two sections? Wait, I know that the first section should be titled "Exclusively non-penetrative." But what about the second section? Leave it as "Not exclusive," "Non exclusive," "Semi non-penetrative," "Partially non-penetrative," or "Not exclusively non-penetrative" (which is a longer and kind of an awkward title...but also more direct), or do you have a better suggestion?

And, LOL, sorry; I know that I threw out one or a few not so good titles there. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it more, not too many things in this article could be considered penetrative (obviously, which is the point of this article); the only truly penetrative things I see are oral sex and fingering. But I suppose since the "Types of non-penetrative sexual activity" list in this article is not long, it would not be too much of a big deal to split the exclusively penetrative from the non-exclusively penetrative. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and made the changes this way. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: I just tweaked the lead this way. I may later tweak it again. If I do, I will not likely list the change here in this section...and maybe not at all. Flyer22 (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Virtual sex

I have restored this and added links to cybersex and phone sex. It was removed but no justification was provided. --Simon Speed (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Virtual sex has nothing to do with non-penetrative sex. Non-penetrative sex requires physical body-to-body contact, either naked or clothed. Virtual sex is only a way to masturbate, just like watching porn. It has absolutely nothing to do with non-penetrative sex! -- Picker78 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Virtual sex is sex, between different people without penetration. It's one of the options that people can choose to avoid STIs. Both cyber and phone sex can both be considered forms of infidelity and cybersex can be made more intimate with teledildonics. So far I've seen no reason for excluding these activities, apart from your personal feelings. I'm restoring the links. Please seek a concensus rather than taking out stuff you don't like. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's no sex at all, it's only masturbation! How can you not see the difference? All forms of non-penetrative sex require body-to-body contact, while virtual sex is always performed at a distance even by watching or listening to some video or audio taped stuff. People doing virtual sex only masturbate, reaching orgasm by touching themselves or using a sex toy. This is a public site, you can't misinform people like that. -- Picker78 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

People engaging in mutual masturbation (one of the near-synonyms for non-penetrative sex) only masturbate. They may masturbate each other, or themselves. A quick google will generate loads of links to discussion on whether phone & cyber sex constitute infidelity and some celebrity sleaze stories where the cheating was precisely that. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Mutual masturbation" in the form of non-penetrative sex is only used as a euphemism to describe mutual handjob or mutual footjob, so it has nothing to do with actual masturbation. On the other hand, virtual sex can only be a form of masturbation, as it never involves any body-to-body contact. The fact that virtual sex often constitutes infidelity means nothing at all; even flirting can constitute infidelity or even watching porn instead of having sex! -- Picker78 (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Mutual masturbation" ... has nothing to do with actual masturbation. This has got to be a joke, surely!!!!! See Handjob, see the frottage section where it talks about clothed frottage (ie. no direct contact). I understand that people want to discuss the niceties of what is and what is not penetrative, but the belief that virtual sex isn't sex is very much a minority opinion. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a joke at all... Handjob is non-penetrative sex, not masturbation. It just resembles the way a person masturbates! Clothed frottage is non-penetrative sex too, because there is physical contact between two bodies. Virtual sex does not involve any body-to-body contact, so it is a form of masturbation. In general, the difference between sex and masturbation is that sex requires physical contact between the genitals of a person's body and any part of another person's body - naked or clothed, whereas in masturbation there is no such contact! -- Picker78 (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Picker78 please cite a source bolstering your assertions that non-penetrative sex must include "body-to-body contact". Until such source is provided, you are presenting a personal opinion as fact.-SeedFeeder (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I guess it's quite the opposite. You have to cite a reliable source saying that non-penetrative sex can also mean sex from a distance! You just can't have sex from a distance, virtual sex is only aided masturbation (nothing to do with the form of "mutual masturbation" that involves physical contact). -- Picker78 (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I am not the one who is proposing a change to the article. So to my way of thinking, the burden of proof does not lie with me. But, in the interests of producing a more accurate article, here is a source that presents virtual sex as a form of non-penetrative sex:

[1]

With that being stated, again I ask you to produce sources that present your particular point of view. -SeedFeeder (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the only one you could find and - excuse me - it is bullshit written by some tech-tosser who wants to promote virtual sex as an alternative sex method. I do not need to produce any source, just type "non-penetrative sex" and google it. It will be easy to see that in all cases they are talking about body-to-body contact! -- Picker78 (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how I feel about this topic. From what I have witnessed, most people do not consider virtual sex "real sex," just as some people do not feel that oral sex is "real sex." But I will state to Picker78 that we go by WP:Consensus and WP:Reliable sources here. Without that, a single editor should not be able to control any part of a well-watched article in the way you have done. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So you need to present a reliable source that defines virtual sex as a form of non-penetrative sex. As I already said, there is an obvious big difference between virtual sex and all forms of non-penetrative sex that are included here. -- Picker78 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Mammary intercourse

Is a hand-drawn picture of mammary intercourse really necessary? It's more pornography than informational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.95.211 (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IP, this has been discussed before above. I do not feel strongly about it either way. Flyer22 (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Section removed

I removed the "Joycelyn Elders controversy in the United States" section. It claimed that Elders, who had been the surgeon general of the US, had tried to popularize non-penetrative sex, and was fired. This is untrue. She was quoted as having said that perhaps masturbation should be taught in the schools, and was fired. The three references on the line agree with me, and not with the claim that was previously in this section. Since a correction makes this paragraph not about non-penetrative sexual contact, the section became irrelevant to the article, so I removed the section. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Chikan != Frotteurism

Under "Frottage" - "Distinctions in Terminology" it says the japanese word "Chikan" means unwanted frottage on trains. That is not remotely accurate. "Chikan" (is simply a generic term meaning "pervert". A quick trip to an online Japanese translator (e.g. http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php) will confirm this.

Further, the offensive behavior that sometimes occurs on crowded Japanese trains is not at all limited to frottage (rubbing of genitals), with unwanted groping being the main problem.

Manga sometimes show girls yelling "Chikan!" due to unwanted touching on trains, but that's simply because loudly outing the pervert is their first defense in current Japanese society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flj529 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm debating whether to just remove the bit on "chikan", or replace it with a comment about it being misunderstood in the west as meaning train frotteurism/groping (due to the media reports about the current publicity campaigns in Japan). Leaning towards simply removing it. Comments? Flj529 (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

opting to just remove. Feel free to discuss if any issues. Also, see more related references at Talk:Chikan Flj529 (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Girl Love.jpg

Somebody just added the above image to the mutual masturbation section. I reverted this chiefly because the image was full size and not a thumbnail. I could have fixed this but I'm not sure what the photo is actually adding to the article. I think the artwork we have already is more explicit and helps the reader understand what is being discussed. What are other people's views? --Simon Speed (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was just going to fix it with '|thumb', but saw you had removed it. It's pretty accurately on-topic and I don't see a problem with it. I think it, and the male/male frottage one, should be all standard thumbnail size (without specifying pixels), and I don't think either of them need captions - it's all covered in the text and there's nothing useful we can add. I don't see any reason the edit it out, since it's on topic and available. --Nigelj (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The image is on topic. I just don't think it's a terribly good illustration: understanding of what's going on relies heavily on the viewer's knowledge, something that an encyclopedia article shouldn't do. We have 2 male/female illustrations, 1 male/male and 1 female/female which I think is a reasonable balance. If someone want to add another female/female image how about File:Erste Privat-Badinage der Jungfrauen vom Bayrischen Platz in 12 Exemplaren.jpg which is very clear and isn't used on other sexuality pages. I have removed the pixel size from the frot image, I think it's standard for this to be just a thumbnail. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am all for a balanced and encyclopedic selection of images no matter what the topic. But in sexual topics, it turns out that there is a certain exhibitionist demographic who will insist on spamming us with snapshots of themselves engaged in the "encyclopedic" feat in question. "Girl Love.jpg" appears to be an image of that category. I see no reason to include it, as it doesn't any informative value. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "G0y"

Is it pronounced /ɡɒɪ̯/ or /d͡ʒɪ̯ː zɪːɹəʉ̯ wɔɪ̯/? (These pronunciations are transcripts of how I pronounce them) FokkerTISM 17:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dry humping: Same meaning as NPS or just a type of NPS?

I believe dry humping should not be listed as a synonym to NPS, but only as a type of NPS. Every source that I looked defines dry humping as clothed frottage, while NPS can also be naked. Dionisia Bekri (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am certain that you are a WP:Sockpuppet of User:Picker78. Not only did you out yourself by showing up after the article was semi-protected, but by completely reverting to Picker78's wording. That's right, you didn't just remove "dry humping"; you reverted to his preferred wording for the first line in its entirety.

I am not interested in debating with you, because you have consistently violated Wikipedia's rules and guidelines and your logic about this doesn't make any sense. This article is about non-penetrative sex. "Dry humping" is just another word for it. In fact, "dry humping" and "frottage" are the common names for non-penetrative sex. Most people and sources do not say "non-penetrative sex" or "NPS." The references in this article show that. Just like they show that "dry humping" is just another word for "frottage." See the Frottage section, and the first source used for it? The same source I added first place in the lead. And seeing as a person does not have to be clothed for it to be called "frottage," the same applies to "dry humping." Like an IP said while reverting you, sex does not have to be dry for non-penetrative sex to be called dry humping. If you'd really looked through sources, reliable sources, you'd know that. I can provide reliable sources backing what I'm saying. Can you? Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What is a reliable source for the definition of frottage and dry humping? This?

1.^ a b c M., Hodge; Evelyn Blackwood, Jeffrey M. Dickemann, Doug Jones, Frank Muscarella, Paul L. Vasey, Walter L. Williams (2000). "The Evolution of Human Homosexual Behavior". Current Anthropology: 385. ISBN 1-0768-88-1.

This is ridiculous! This is a book about homosexuality, which makes about 5-10% of sexuality in general. How can you define frottage and dry humping based on that?

According to The American Heritage Medical Dictionary frottage is:

The act of rubbing against the body of another person, as in a crowd, to attain sexual gratification.

The whole definition of frottage as described in the article is wrong. Frottage is just about rubbing, it is just a form of non-penetrative sex. This is why there was a whole autonomous section about frottage in the original article. There still is this section but some fool changed the original definition of frottage and made it like it is now, which is completely wrong. If frottage is exactly the same as non-penetrative sex, then why have a different section about frottage in the article? How stupid is that?

In the lead of the article, non-penetrative sex should only be synonymous to outercourse (no frottage, no dry humping, no heavy petting). This is exactly how it was in the beginning, when this article was first written, before some stupid changed the definition of frottage and added frottage and dry humping as being synonyms of non-penetrative sex. Completely wrong! 79.107.9.21 (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the above, blocked IP for evading block. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Not much merit to the IP's comments above, CharlieEchoTango, so no worries. The IP also appears to have a dynamic IP address, so blocking the IPs may be futile unless a range block is done.

IP, it doesn't matter if the source is about homosexuality...since it counts as a WP:Reliable source and is defining frottage/dry humping. But since we're on the subject of homosexuality, it seems that the gay/lesbian community is a big example of how frottage and dry humping mean the same thing, and are used to refer to any type of non-penetrative sex (sometimes with the exclusion of mutual masturbation). Just Googling "Frottage" on Google Books shows that; for example, Felice Newman in this source, and in this source where she says, "Tribadism is very pleasurable. It's what some call frottage (from the French verb "to rub") and others call dry humping or dry f**king (though it's not necessarily very dry!) Basically, tribadism is grinding your vulva against some part of your partner's body. You can hump a partner's thigh, rub vulva to pubic bone, or vulva to tailbone. You can do it with clothes on or off. If you have an extremely responsive clit, you may especially appreciate the indirect stimulation."

That said, of course it's not just the gay and lesbian community who defines frottage and dry humping to mean erotic rubbing against a person's body, whether naked or clothed. There are the following sources, ranging from psychology, medical, to self-help:

"Traditionally speaking, outercourse meant rubbing without penetration – or what later generations would call 'dry humping'."[2]

"Today's teens may add oral and anal sex as well as 'dry humping' (rubbing genitals on genitals without penetration)..."[3]

"Also called outercourse, dry humping can be a highly pleasurable way of stimulating each other's genitals without hands, tongues, or sex toys."[4]

"You'd still have the option of having 'outercourse,' all the sexual activities that involve hands, fingers, or rubbing against each other's bodies (frottage)."[5]

"Mutual masturbation, external rubbing to orgasm without penetration ('frottage' or 'outercourse'), and similar activities are very unlikely to result in HIV transmission although they do not necessarily protect against other more infectious STDs."[6]

And there are a lot more sources. Plenty of researchers/medical sources define frottage and dry humping that way, to mean erotic rubbing of one's genitals against another's body, whether naked or clothed. Even the aids.gov "Sexual Risk Factors" source used in the lead says, "Frottage—also known as "dry humping" or body-to-body rubbing." Putting aside mutual masturbation, most sources say "frottage," "dry humping" or "outercourse." They define all three of these terms the same way, as non-penetrative sex (sexual rubbing)...whether naked or clothed.

You ask "if frottage is exactly the same as non-penetrative sex, then why have a different section about frottage in the article"? Um, likely because the word can also refer to frotteurism. As the section says, frotteurism is "a paraphilia involving obsession with frottage or performing frottage nonconsensually (e.g., pressing one's genitals against a stranger on a crowded subway). This behavior was once called 'frottage' but that use is no longer accepted." It sounds exactly like the The American Heritage Medical Dictionary source you cited. But even in that case, The American Heritage Medical Dictionary was listing one example of the term. The main point is that it says "The act of rubbing against the body of another person... ...to attain sexual gratification.' That is what non-penetrative sex is. You go on and on about rubbing, when rubbing is exactly what non-penetrative sex is. You say non-penetrative sex should only be synonymous to outercourse. Well, "frottage," "dry humping" and "heavy petting" are synonymous to outercourse. Without those words in the lead, the only synonym that would be left in parentheses would be "outercourse." And that is what would be completely wrong! Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense! Let's look again at the definition of frottage by The American Heritage Medical Dictionary:

Frottage: The act of rubbing against the body of another person, as in a crowd, to attain sexual gratification.

"As in a crowd" is not an example; it is a main part of the definition! Frottage is rubbing as in a crowd: head to head, waist to waist, feet to feet! This means that handjob, footjob, mammary intercourse and many other non-penetrative sexual activities cannot be described as frottage or dry humping!

And I am asking you again: If frottage is exactly the same as non-penetrative sex, then why have a different section about frottage in the article? Please find a better answer this time, it is obvious you are very confused about that!

CharlieEchoTango, instead of blocking me all the time can you please see the facts? 79.107.38.160 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. It's clear that you don't go by reliable sources (semi-reliable, generally reliable, or highly-reliable) and that, when you do, you skew their definitions to support your POV. You provided one source, which is one example of what frottage can mean, and, as I stated, is more indicative that it is referring to frotteurism. An old definition of frottage. But you completely ignore that. "Frottage" is not simply any kind of rubbing. Head to head, waist to waist, feet to feet. This article is titled Non-penetrative sex. There is nothing sexual about head to head, waist to waist, feet to feet...unless the person is getting sexual gratification from it or their genitals are touching the other person's body. And of course "as in a crowd" is an example. Otherwise, it would be saying that "frottage" only means that this type of sex takes place in public. Not to mention, "as" is used in an example fashion in the debated sentence. If you are familiar with writing, you should know that. Most importantly, the source does not at all support your POV. It does not say "Frottage only means rubbing with clothes on to attain sexual gratification." It says nothing about clothes on or off, in the line you provided anyway, even if we are to assume that the people in the crowd are wearing clothes. And even if it did mention "clothes on," that would still only be one example of how the term is used. Why? Because I provided different sources showing exactly that. That "frottage" is used exactly the way I stated that it is -- to mean sexual grinding with clothes off as much as it means grinding with clothes on. I also showed that despite your belief that "frottage" should only be used as a subset of "outercourse," it is used as an alternate name for outercourse, and that so is "dry humping." The sources I provided clearly demonstrate that all three of these words are generally used as umbrella terms for all forms of non-penetrative sex, minus two examples. Non-penetrative oral sex and mutual masturbation are the only examples where non-penetrative sex acts are distinguished from "frottage/dry humping." That is the only time when "outercourse" is seen as the more accurate term to describe all forms of non-penetrative sex. The only thing I can think to do as a compromise with you (other than having the lead say something like "[so and so] are not always used in a synonymous context") would be to have the lead state "which includes" instead of "also known as," so that it would be worded this way: "Non-penetrative sex or outercourse (which includes frottage, heavy petting and mutual masturbation)," and then the rest of the definition. That way, it'd be following these two examples:

"Outercourse is a term for any nonpenetrative sexual activity that involves contact with intact skin but does not result in an exchange of potentially infectious body fluids. Such activities include masturbation, frottage, petting, massage, and cuddling."[7]

"...'outercourse' (nonpenetrative sex that involves anything from erotic talk to frottage to mutual masturbation as a way of curbing STDs and pregnancy)..."[8]

Finally, there was no need to ask me again why there is a Frottage section in the article. I already answered, and there was no confusion on my part. That section is tackling three overlapping terms with the word "frot" in them. That's why the section exists, other than you likely having been the one who created it. And seeing as "frottage" and "frotteurism" overlap but do not mean the same thing, no matter how much you or others confuse them, having a section to tackle these terms seems somewhat justified. But this article is in bad shape, and really doesn't need a section titled Frottage. I'll be titling it something else. Especially since I'd long ago thought how odd it is that it's singled out, given what is cited (by me) above. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the lead to what I stated above and made other changes to the article.[9] As seen in that link, the Frottage section is still there because I feel it is needed after all, per my statements above about the three overlapping terms. Not to mention...the synonyms and the fact that "frottage" doesn't typically cover mutual masturbation and certainly not non-penetrative oral sex. I would have included "oral sex" in the new line, but oral sex can be penetrative and it's mentioned in the "sexual activity without vaginal, anal, or oral penetration, as opposed to the penetrative aspects of those activities" part of the line, as well as lower in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has undergone several more changes (part of that is the addition of sources; reliable). More will of course be made by me at a later date. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am very glad that you finally agree with me. But I can't understand why you put the section about frottage on top and the various types of non-penetrative sex at the bottom of the page. I think it was much better before, the types of NPS should be listed at the top of the article! 91.140.59.95 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)