Talk:Anal sex

Encyclopedic tone and WP:HOWTO

The following sentence (which appears at the end of the article's opening section) isn't necessary in an encyclopedia article and also sounds too much like the sex manual/advice-giving style that unfortunately tends to creep into sex-related articles on WP.

"It generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing, since the anus does not have sufficient natural lubrication.[1][16]"

I suggest it be removed.-- TyrS  chatties  02:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not how-to in the way that Wikipedia describes how-to at all. It is a fact that should be noted, backed by various reliable sources in the article, such as this one. Every researcher stresses the same thing about anal sex -- adequate lubrication is required to prevent pain and especially damage to the anus. Yes, they are telling people how to have anal sex, and for good reason. That you would suggest it's unencyclopedic and should therefore be removed is mind-boggling to say the least. It's always one of the first things researchers mention about anal sex. Furthermore, you made similar arguments in January 2011 about "giving advice." See Talk:Anal sex/Archive 5#advice. I stated then: "We don't give advice. It's not Wikipedia giving advice. It's experts or other such people with knowledge in the field giving advice. Wikipedia often relays the advice of experts or people in certain fields. This is no different." And I stand by that.

On a side note, in response to this edit by you, a source doesn't have to be available online for you to verify it. Many sources on Wikipedia don't have a url link and no Google Books source has every page available. So your nitpicking at the source and demanding a quote is your personal preference; it is not something that is needed. All I have to do is provide the page number; it is up to you to verify it, whichever way possible. Flyer22 (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just sticking to the first point for the moment, I'm afraid I continue to disagree with your opinions on this, Flyer22. The point of WP:NOTHOW is that Wikipedia should not appear to be providing or relaying advice of any kind. The current wording: "...safe-sex practices are advised... It generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing, since the anus does not have sufficient natural lubrication[1][16]" does give the impression that Wikipedia/we are agreeing with certain sources and relaying their advice. Adding "so-and-so advises" and specifically stating who it is that's doing the advising, so as to make very clear who exactly was the source of the advice, would probably fix this problem.-- TyrS  chatties  03:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

On the side note, I'd advise you (once again), Flyer22, to try to avoid being possessive and personally defensive about particular articles (or perhaps it's only this one). It makes collaboration impossible. I'd also advise you to try to avoid petulantly accusing established editors making only good faith edits & suggestions of "nitpicking" & the like.-- TyrS  chatties  03:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from simply removing request tags etc before issues have been resolved through discussion.-- TyrS  chatties  03:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

To get back to my suggestion (which has not been resolved or even properly discussed so far) the sentence "It generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing, since the anus does not have sufficient natural lubrication.[1][16]" really doesn't belong in the opening section of the article. Reading over those introductory paragraphs, that particular sentence stands out as being noticeably below-par in terms of encyclopedia-quality writing (as opposed to in terms of quality of advice, an entirely separate issue).-- TyrS  chatties  03:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You can continue to disagree with me about your how-to assertion. That's your right. But you are wrong, for the reasons stated by two other editors at Talk:Anal sex/Archive 4#How to and for the reasons I stated in our previous discussion. Like I told you back then, "Experts letting society know that 'you may damage the anus if you do not take this precaution ... is as vital as the dangers of smoking, given how delicate the anal sphincter is, and the problems it can lead to ... if anal sex is performed unwisely." Saying that the wording "gives the impression that Wikipedia/we are agreeing with certain sources" is something that could be said for any wording on Wikipedia. Are we relaying their advice? Yes. And despite your constant citing of WP:NOTHOW, that is perfectly acceptable. Saying "so-and-so advises this" is not reasonable, since every researcher advises this when it comes to anal sex. Go ahead, look through the scholarly sources on it...in addition to simple medical health sites discussing it. Never is it not mentioned when addressing what anal sex is and precautions when engaging in it. Saying "so-and-so advises" would require that we list a variety of names. And listing one would give the impression that only one researcher states this. Every medical article on Wikipedia uses the words "Experts" or "Researchers" without singling out one or a few when there are several or many who stress the same thing.

And for goodness sakes, I am not WP:OWNING the article by disputing your edits regarding a single line and comments about how-to, even when using the word "nitpicking." You speak of accusations, but you are constantly accusing me of having some anal sex obsession, just like you did back in 2011. This time, you've disguised it by saying "(or perhaps it's only this one)." I am a major contributor across several sexuality articles on Wikipedia, as is well-known by others, and my only goal is the quality of the articles and accuracy. Saying "It generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing, since the anus does not have sufficient natural lubrication." is accurate. Plain and simple. That is not an opinion/point of view. That is a fact. A fact you keep having a problem with. Your main problem when editing Wikipedia is that you are always telling others who know better than you do about how a Wikipedia article should be formatted. You may be an established Wikipedia editor, but you are not an experienced one, as I have pointed out your errors time and time again. And it is no doubt due to your sporadic editing.

And I removed the request tag because it is not a valid one. Besides that, the line is now backed to a different source, which makes your request tag even more invalid because the source is no longer backed to anything about psychological factors in the lead.

I am not debating your how-to issue again. I will simply bring in other editors on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This change is fine, but saying "recommend" is no different than saying "advise." Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• sigh* Flyer22, I'm not interested in trying to reason with you any more, nor am I interested in having to wade through your very lengthy protestations, threats, brags, personal attacks and refusals to understand NOTHOW, etc. The fact remains that the final sentence of the introductory section needs improving and/or moving, for the quality of the article. It very much sounds like you need to take a good step back.-- TyrS  chatties  04:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, I feel the same with regard to your responses to me. A similar line about this safety precaution is also in the Anatomy and stimulation section, and I cannot see why something so vital to anal sex precautions should not be in the lead or in the article at all. And since the fact remains that I disagree with you and am not the least bit interested in debating how-to issues extensively with you again, I have asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to weigh in so that this will be settled by more than just two or three editors or by "giving up." Flyer22 (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I did "give up" before because such an unpleasant impasse developed (and there were other things to be getting on with in real life). I welcome the involvement of other editors.

I have made a tweak to the sentence in question. Perhaps I should have pasted what it would look like here first so you could read it & think about it. No biggie either way, I trust.

I believe the now-concluding (to intro section) statement that "the anus does not have sufficient lubrication" should really be sufficient. It communicates that lubrication is an issue without sounding like WP is relaying advice/recommendations/etc. (The avoidance of sounding like a manual is important to me in all articles, by the way, not just this one.) (Oh, and I actually didn't mean anything particular about "just this article" above, it was only that I haven't noticed your name so frequently in other articles, but then I haven't looked.)-- TyrS  chatties  04:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(I agree about "provide" vs "have", but "have" was the wording that was there, I didn't put that in. Certainly "provide" is better, it should've been "provide" before. Hey, we agree on something!!!)-- TyrS  chatties  04:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to point out that I didn't add the debated line. I am fine with your change to it and I tweaked it, but, yes, it would have been better for you to wait and see what others have to state about this topic first. The discussion is still on-going, after all, and I don't like to think that it's been a waste of time to ask other editors to weigh in (although the WikiProjects sometimes fail to weigh in anyway). I suppose it's still not a waste, since they can still weigh in about this topic as a whole. My point has always been that relaying what researchers say, whether we state "Researchers say" or "Researchers advise" or "authorities recommend" (like you did) is perfectly acceptable. I've seen enough WP:GA and WP:FA medical and scientific articles to know that. But we clearly won't fully agree on this issue, and, right now, we should step back and see if others weigh in...because people aren't likely to weigh in if this section is too long: Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Right now, it looks too long. Flyer22 (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Something else real quick: There are also times when I think about how-to issues, such as at Talk:Anal sex/Archive 7#Hygiene concerns. The dilemma is how to present hygiene issues without sounding how-to guide-ish. But, like I stated, I hope others weigh in on some of this. Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as we clearly indicate (and cite) who the advice is coming from (i.e. there's no chance of it sounding like it might be coming from us/Wikipedia) it should be fine.--TyrS 10:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And that is where we disagree. Because, as I stated before, many things on Wikipedia sound as though it's coming from us, and there is no obligation to say "Researchers say" all the time. We have a Reference section for a reason, because we are a tertiary source and so readers can see that it's not coming from us. Further, including one or a few lines that relays the advice of experts doesn't mean that the article reads like a how-to guide; WP:NOTHOW is referring to articles generally reading that way. If stating something that is fact, such as anal douching may lead to [so and so problems], we do not have to state "Researchers say anal douching may lead to [so and so problems]." Never has that been a requirement. Consider the wording in the HIV/AIDS article, for example. One example is the following line in the lead: "Prevention of HIV infection, primarily through safe sex and needle-exchange programs, is a key strategy to control the disease." So, basically, what you are suggesting is simply not something that I've seen done each and every time or even the majority of the time. And singling out one researcher, especially if the researcher is not notable, is often advised against. It can be WP:UNDUE or, like I stated before, lead readers to believe that only this one researcher feels this way (as if what he or she is saying is WP:FRINGE). If the researcher is stating something that is scientific consensus, such as pain likely happening and the anus likely being damaged if adequate lubrication isn't used during anal sex, we do not have to state "Researchers say." The same goes for mentioning that safe-sex practices reduce the likelihood of contracting STDs. This is something I've only seen you advocate due to your interpretation of what WP:NOTHOW extends to. And this is what I'm tired of debating with you because we'll never see eye-to-eye on it. Which is why we really need outside comments on the matter. I've also asked editors at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cming from a message on WT:NOT, this statement is not a HOWTO violation as long as the sources are reliable. Note that it should not be taken that we can't give advice, simply that anything that may be construed as advice should be considered by the reader as a non-professional opinion per our disclaimers. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Masem. That's what I've been saying, except in many more words, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Masem & thanks for helping try to clarify this. Just to be clear, is the statement you refer to above the sentence I quoted at the top of this section? If so, It would be great to get your opinion on which of the following versions sounds more encyclopedic and neutral:

• "As with most forms of sexual interaction, individuals are at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and therefore safe-sex practices are advised. Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice, and unprotected anal sex is the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse, due to the vulnerability of the rectum and sphincter tissues. It generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing, since the anus does not have sufficient natural lubrication."

Or

• "As with most forms of sexual interaction, individuals are at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and therefore authorities such as the WHO recommend the use of safe-sex practices. Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice, and unprotected anal sex is the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse due to the vulnerability of the rectum and sphincter tissues and because the anus does not provide sufficient natural lubrication.."

Wouldn't you say that the second version is more likely than the first to not lead the reader to construe it as advice from Wikipedia? And that NOTHOW strongly implies that editors should endeavour to avoid using/adding wording that could do so? (After all, how many readers actually read the disclaimer?)

Thanks very much.--TyrS 23:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: More editors from Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not have stated that the original wording and other such similar wording is not a how-to violation.

Also, even though I stated that I am okay with the current wording, saying "the anus does not provide sufficient natural lubrication" is not sufficient in relaying to readers that adequate lubrication is required to avoid pain and damage to the anus. Yes, the current wording is implying that adequate lubrication is needed. But implying it is not sufficient enough, in my opinion. There is no need to beat around the bush (be ambiguous), when we can explicitly state it. And again, explicitly stating it is allowed and is the usual way things are done around here. That said, the detail on this, which does specify it, is in the Anatomy and stimulation section, so it's not a big deal that it has been reduced it to implication in the lead...especially since the lead is for summarizing anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Re "More editors from Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not have stated that the original wording and other such similar wording is not a how-to violation". In fact, Flyer22, only one editor (Johnuniq) has said that the original wording was not a how-to violation. LeadSongDog called the whole dilemma false, which means he's saying that only two alternatives are being considered, and that "Presentation of the encyclopedic medical information does not have to be done in the fashion of an unencyclopedic how-to" which isn't saying that the original wording was not a how-to violation. (The double negative he used, when converted to a positive statement, comes out "presentation of the information has to be done in the fashion of an encyclopedic how-to" which is pretty unclear, and I have asked him to clarify what he meant but he hasn't yet replied.)

But sorry, the fact is that you currently have one other editor there supporting your position (while we await clarification from LeadSongDog). It's a bit strange to turn that into "editors".

--TyrS 02:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I took LeadSongDog's comment as support that the original wording is not a how-to violation. So far, two editors have stated that it is not. Masem was indeed referring to the original wording when he replied above, because it's the original wording I posted there and asked for commentary on. Not to mention, Masem replied very soon after I posted my query there, indicating that he did not read all of this discussion at that time before replying. But we will wait and see if LeadSongDog clarifies. Flyer22 (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RfC: Is it a how-to violation/unencyclopedic to clearly state sex precautions?

Comments are needed about whether or not saying that anal sex "generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing, since the anus does not [provide] sufficient natural lubrication" is a how-to violation/doesn't belong in the lead or possibly in the article. One view is that it is giving advice, sounds like Wikipedia is telling readers what to do, and is therefore unencyclopedic; the other view is that it is a vital precaution mentioned by various reliable sources explaining the precautions of anal sex and is therefore a medical fact worthy of mentioning. The wording has been changed since then, but comments on the matter as a whole are still needed (for example, the new wording is argued as not being explicit enough). Extensive discussion about this has taken place here and here on the talk page between two editors, and a few editors from Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not have also weighed in; see this link. Please read some or all of those discussions to understand where both arguments are coming from. Flyer22 (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed: advice is neither warranted nor allowed in Wikipedia. If the reader wants a how-to manual on the subject, there is plenty of information elsewhere. The better argument would be in regards to what links should be displayed at the end of the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but is it a how-to violation to make clear, without any ambiguity, that anal sex "generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing, since the anus does not [provide] sufficient natural lubrication"? As Johnuniq, one of the editors who helped write the "What Wikipedia is not" policy, stated, "It would be a how-to violation if an article on sex were to offer opinions on best positions and techniques. It is obviously of encyclopedic interest to know that in 'missionary' intercourse natural lubrication is usually abundant, and it is quite reasonable (and not a how-to violation) for an article on anal intercourse to mention that there is no natural lubrication so artificial means are required to avoid damage. That statement is not offering advice on how to do it, but is pertinent information to provide the reader with an understanding of what the process entails. It's like a gun article (I've just come from Brady Campaign) describing how bullets are introduced to a gun—core information for an understanding of the topic without any attempt at providing training on the topic."

In your edit summary, you stated "no advice without hefty citation." The debated line is simply a fact regarding one of the dangers of engaging in anal sex, and there are many reliable scholarly sources available to support it. To exclude this important fact about anal sex based on the argument that it is a how-to violation would be excluding vital information about anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: Another editor has also commented on the matter at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, stating that it is not a how-to violation to relay the debated information. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear all, I submit four points to this discussion:

1. There is no absolute distinction between 'how-to' and not 'how-to' regarding this sentence. If I am doing research on the spread of HIV/AIDS, then inclusion of this information is of academic value. If I am reading this page with the intention of having anal sex (this is not an advertisement) I would be able to use this information as a 'how-to'. (The whole debate would change if the sentence would read: "When having anal sex, first apply some lube, then... etc.", because this is clearly only a 'how-to' .)

2. However, even if we do consider the sentence to be only 'how-to', then I am afraid that omission will not solve the problem here: 1) we know that people have anal sex, 2) we can assume that by default people will try anal sex without lubrication, hence 3) omission will result in providing a how-to in the negative sense: implicitly encouraging people to have non-lubricated anal sex. Resolving this problem is possible when we take a more detailed look at the sentence involved.

3. Lets cut it into three variants:

• A) "Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice, and unprotected anal sex is the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse..."

With two possible additions:

• B) "A)...+ because the anus does not provide sufficient natural lubrication to prevent tearing";
• C) "A) + B) + ... [and prevention] requires a generous application of a personal lubricant".

I submit that it does not matter whether we say B) or C), because the first implies the latter. Likewise, if we say A) we already imply B) and, hence, C). The latter merely function to detail why the former is the case (and I can only argue in favour of including this - not including it sounds to me like treating it as a taboo). Hence, the question of allowing [C)] boils down to whether we allow A).

4. Should we allow A)? Even the information in A) can be considered as 'how-to' information. However, I think that few, if any, would contest that A) first and foremost concerns information of a medical nature. Moreover, seen the HIV/AIDS risks involved this medical information should be provided in a most prominent place. We simply have a moral obligation to include this information: not providing it implies actively participating in the spread of HIV/AIDS! I, for one, would want my (hypothetical) kid to read about the risks involved with non-lubricated anal sex, etc. not because of its 'how-to' nature, but because of the medical aspects and risks. The sentence leaves my kid free to choose whether or not to use lubrication: [s/]he can merely more intelligently decide whether or not to do so. Thus, I say include [A), hence B) and hence C)] - ie. the full sentence - in the lead. --Gulpen (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, Gulpen. I of course like your B and C examples. Your B example is the way the line is currently worded, with the exception that it excludes "to prevent tearing" (or alternatively, "to prevent damage to the anus"). The detail about lubrication, among two other ways that anal sex pain/damage to the anus may be avoided, are included in the Anatomy and stimulation section, but I have made the point that excluding that anal sex "generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant" from the lead is not adequately informing readers of this aspect. Like I made clear in the section below, "Saying that 'the anus does not provide sufficient natural lubrication' clearly will not signal to everyone that using lubrication during anal sex is vital. [One] cannot definitively say that it will. And because such ambiguity won't, this is the reason why every researcher and medical site discussing anal sex precautions explicitly state the lubrication factor. There are many people who don't think to use lubrication when having anal sex, and some think that their own spit will suffice. This is why it is extremely important to be clear that anal sex 'generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent [damage to the anus], since the anus does not [provide] sufficient natural lubrication'." Yes, readers can find this information in the Anatomy and stimulation section. But some people don't read past the lead. And if the argument is that the information is indeed a how-to violation and therefore shouldn't be in the lead, then that would mean that it shouldn't be in the Anatomy and stimulation section either. I am more so arguing that it should be in the article, for the reasons I've gone over, whether in the lead or not. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• No violation. (added later to make my opinion clear) bonze blayk (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC). I agree with Gulpen; WP:NOTHOWTO is not violated by including the entire sentence, including the advisory that "a generous application of a personal lubricant is required to avoid tearing" (or similiar).

The wording in WP:NOTHOWTO seems very clear to me: "Wikipedia articles should not read like: 1. Instruction manuals." That sentence does not read as such; it's simply a clear statement regarding risk avoidance, derived from WP:RS sources, which I believe is noteworthy for anyone researching this topic.

Finally, I note that TyrS refers below to the Gun article as an example of avoiding "How-To" advice; personally, I think the article that's more relevant here for comparison would be Gun safety... see particularly the section on "Rules and mindset". - thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I just realised I understood tearing to mean tearing of a condom, hence my reference to HIV/AIDS - if it means damaging the anus, this should be made more explicit (though I actually think that tearing of condom may be even more important!). --Gulpen (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a flaw in the wording, Gulpen. It should say "to prevent damage to the anus." Yes, the latter is what the sources are referring to. But there are reliable sources that mention both of these aspects -- the condom breaking and damage to the anus due to no lubrication or inadequate lubrication. Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• No violation. It looks good to me. Facts about the act, precautions, health, safety, etc., as long as they are properly sourced and on-topic, are required content and not a violation of HOWTO. It's more a matter of how it's written, than the actual content. Editors just need ot be careful, but deleting this would be wrong. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• No violation. Saying that lube is needed because the anus doesn't lubricate itself or that the risk of STD transmission can be mitigated by using a condom is no more how-to than saying that "Anal sex is the sex act in which the penis is inserted into the anus of a sexual partner." After all, that tells you how to do it. Any article about an act will necessarily include a description of the act and, unless that description is woefully inadequate, it will tell you how to perform the act. For example, cigarette says that smokers set fire to one end and suck on the other (I paraphrase but only a little). As long as the information remains in the third person and is backed up by reliable sources, there is no issue here. (Meanwhile, in Freudian typo of the week, I originally wrote "Ass long as...") Dricherby (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• No violation, certainly not as presently worded ("Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice, and unprotected anal sex is the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse[1] due to the vulnerability of the rectum and sphincter tissues[1][2] and because the anus does not provide sufficient natural lubrication.[1][16]"), but even as it was originally. WP:NOTHOWTO gives the examples "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes", and this single sentence was nowhere near close to any of these. On the other hand, I would question the idea that the anus is supposed to provide lubrication. Is this like the old vulva/vagina confusion? Surely it would be the rectum that we would hope for lubrication from? Unfortunately, the two cited references (1 and 16) are no help. 1 does not mention where the lubrication ought to have come from, and 16 actually says, "Because the anus is not capable of producing lubrication and is so fragile..." I would rather see both of these issues attributed to (or also to) the rectum, but in the absence of references I guess there's nothing to be done about that at the moment. --Nigelj (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  I see the present wording no longer mentions personal lubricant in the lede. Since it comes up about half a dozen times in the body of the article, I wonder if this is a significant omission, and if so what is the justification for removing it? --Nigelj (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• No violation per Flyer22, Nigelj, and Dricherby. I agree with Nigelj about the unjustified removal of lubricant from the lede, and am restoring it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• The current wording avoids the problems the previous wording had and is a big improvement. My point - which has been distorted if not lost in all the fuss and drama (into which I lack both the time and interest to be further drawn) - was that editors (and this seems to become an issue particularly in the sex-related articles) should be aware of and take care with content that can be read as advice. It's really no more complicated, controversial or sinister than that, but due to personality politics it has been blown way out of proportion.--TyrS 19:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Nigel, I will try to take care of your concerns about the rectal sourcing. I'm already going to be replacing sources with better sources. But in the Anatomy and stimulation section, it says "the rectal mucous membrane provides insufficient lubrication for sexual penetration," which was originally in the lead. Do you think we should state "the rectal mucous membrane" at all?

TyrS, the current wording is hardly any different than the original wording (which, again, I didn't write), so I don't see how it's a huge improvement. Further, though Scheinwerfermann is very often excellent at tweaking, the current wording needs further tweaking because unprotected anal sex is not the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse only because "the anal and rectal tissues do not produce natural lubrication." The anus and the rectum are more fragile than the vagina with or without lubrication, and the high risk is really more about all of what is stated in the Infection section (again, some of those sources will be replaced with better sources). We need to get that high-risk information across in the lead without going into detail about it, so part of the original wording (the part about the vulnerability of the rectum and sphincter tissues) should be returned. And as has been shown, you view how-to/"giving advice" differently than others; that is obvious and has been the problem, no matter how you downplay it. It has had nothing to do with my "personality politics." And once again, you fail to focus on the content and not the editor, after being advised to do so. Doing so is a WP:TALK guideline. At least my focusing on your perception in this paragraph directly relates to the content. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann, I changed it to this, per my comment about it above and because the wording is clearer that anal sex risks damage to the anus/rectum with or without lubricant use, which of course also has nothing to do with whether or not a condom is worn. As we know, it's just that damage is more likely to happen without lubricant use. Of course, the lead still needs cultural views returned to it, per #Including cultural views in the lead, which will also take away from the lead ending on cautionary note. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I understand the thinking behind the query, especially in matters related to health. WP:MOSMED gives some advice in this section, which states some pitfalls to avoid, including: "You give practical advice". However, there is a difference between an editor giving practical advice, or describing how to do something, and an encyclopedia entry on a topic which covers the main aspects which are contained in reliable sources, and citing those sources. It is, though, sometimes difficult to know when a text is giving advice and when it is summarising the main points of reliable sources. In general, if the text is saying - "You should use lubrication...." or "Lubricate the penis before insertion..." that is giving advice, if it is saying, "anal sex generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing", that is providing general information. I note in some comments on this talkpage that there is a feeling that we should be advising, albeit not in a how-to manner. That view would be inappropriate. We do not pass on advice. We provide a neutral summary of what reliable sources have to say on the matter, and we avoid giving the impression that we support any viewpoint. It should never be the case that someone says to someone else: "Wikipedia advises we use lubrication." Though it would be fine for someone to say: "The Wikipedia article says that anal sex generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing." We provide facts not advice. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, SilkTork, and for your commentary in the section about cultural views needing to be in the lead (my sentiments exactly). As for your point about someone saying "Wikipedia advises we use lubrication," well, like I stated before, almost everything on Wikipedia can be taken to mean that it is Wikipedia saying it. Speaking from personal experience, I always hear people saying "Wikipedia says [this]" or "Wikipedia says [that]," as if it's not coming from the references instead. But then again, a lot of people don't know that Wikipedia text is based on what sources are saying and not what Wikipedia thinks/believes. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

potentially dangerous practices & the desire to relay advice

Anyone interested in the issue of avoiding apparent advice-giving (or unattributed advice-relaying) wording in WP articles that deal with potentially dangerous recreational activities (like anal sex) might find it helpful to have a look at the smoking article. It manages to avoid saying anything along the lines of "should", "recommend", "advise", etc. That example serves as a great guide for articles like this one. It manages to maintain a completely detatched, neutral, dispassionate tone throughout.--TyrS 00:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And as has been stated, "recommend" and "advise" are acceptable and can be detached, neutral and dispassionate in tone. You even used "recommend." And there's no way to get around those words when relaying safe sex practices, unless we word things like the HIV/AIDS article: "Prevention of HIV infection, primarily through safe sex and needle-exchange programs, is a key strategy to control the disease." I'd already removed "should" in one of my latest edits, as you no doubt saw. But I will look at the Smoking article and others. I've looked at it before, so I rather mean that I'll study it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The wording you quote above from the HIV/AIDS article is excellent. It achieves a high standard in terms of avoiding potentially sounding like advice-giving, and therefore sounding detatched & dispassionate. Those few sentences would be even better with a citation, but still, it's a hell of a lot better than something like "It generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing, since the anus does not have sufficient natural lubrication".--TyrS 02:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The need for and okay-ness of the wording you have debated has already been explained, so I won't repeat myself on that. But as for the HIV/AIDS statement not being sourced, that's because it's a well-known fact and is sourced lower in the article. Per Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations, "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The sentence I improved (i.e. " It generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing, since the anus does not have sufficient natural lubrication") was certainly only ok. I know you don't see it the way I do, but in terms of encyclopedic quality, the current version is much better. I am just trying to improve the quality of the article, Flyer22. As far as a statement not being sourced partly because an editor thinks that "it's a well-known fact" is not good enough here (per WP:V). Anyone can say "it's a well-known fact".--TyrS 03:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And like I stated in the above section: Also, even though I stated that I am okay with the current wording, saying "the anus does not provide sufficient natural lubrication" is not sufficient in relaying to readers that adequate lubrication is required to avoid pain and damage to the anus. Yes, the current wording is implying that adequate lubrication is needed. But implying it is not sufficient enough, in my opinion. There is no need to beat around the bush (be ambiguous), when we can explicitly state it. And again, explicitly stating it is allowed and is the usual way things are done around here. That said, the detail on this, which does specify it, is in the Anatomy and stimulation section, so it's not a big deal that it has been reduced it to implication in the lead...especially since the lead is for summarizing anyway.

Really, there is no point in repeating ourselves. You don't have to keep stressing to me the type of wording you like. My point is that it is not required and is not necessarily an improvement. I know that you aren't trying to harm the article. I just don't fully agree with the way you've went about improving it.

And as for the HIV/AIDS statement, WP:LEAD is clear. Sourcing the lead is a case-by-case issue, seeing as not everything in the lead needs to be sourced. Only likely to be challenged things need to be, and even that is a case-by-case issue. There are leads that don't have any sources, or only one or two sources, such as the WP:GA Lesbian article, because everything it states is sourced lower in the article. Prevention of HIV infection by way of safe sex and needle-exchange programs is not something that is likely to be challenged. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to be completely clear, Flyer22, yes, I continue to disagree with your opinion that 'merely' implying "anal lubrication is required" in the intro section is not sufficient. I am unlikely to change my position on this. And I suspect that what you choose to call "beating around the bush" is actually what I call "encyclopedic tone" (as seen in articles like the smoking one, for example). If the main editors of the smoking article had made the supposition that anyone reading their article was necessarily interested in trying smoking, and had prioritized this over of all other editorial concerns, they probably would have struggled not to advise readers (even subtly). Perhaps that's what's happening here - perhaps you're assuming that readers of this article are necessarily interested in trying anal sex? (or should be?) I think the implied 'dear reader, please make sure you lubricate your anus' (lol) advice only seems "ambiguous" to you because you have a strong desire to relay that advice to readers (based, perhaps, on the idea that they are or should be interested in personally trying out this practice - and please don't misconstrue this as an accusation of any kind because it's not - I'm simply saying maybe you are too worried about people damaging themselves on the basis of a Wikipedia article). The problem with seeming to give advice (and I probably tried to get this across last year or whenever it was) is that it can also read (to impressionable readers) like we are encouraging people (readers) to try this, and I don't think that impressionable people need any more 'encouragement' (or pressure) on them than already exists culturally. (By the way, another article that manages to avoid how-to type wording includes gun, in case you had any interest in looking that up. I'm still waiting for Johnuniq to explain how he thinks that article might have supported his opinion.)

Certainly the fact that the lead is for summarizing makes my edits even more necessary. There are still other matters I'd like to raise with you concerning those references about the pain being sometimes due to psychological factors, but I'm afraid we might not have enough time in our lifetimes to actually get through another issue (however apparently minor). (haha)

Sorry, but I also disagree with your feeling that "explicitly stating it ... is the usual way things are done around here". The best-quality articles around here don't even imply advice, let alone explicitly state it.--TyrS 05:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. It is a clear improvement in many ways. I'm sorry that you can't see that. And you also don't have to keep re-quoting to me your comments about the type of wording you like.

We seem to feel exactly the same about this at least, since I don't fully agree with the way you have gone about replying to my edits, suggestions and requests.

--TyrS 05:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Will you stop breaking up my posts? That is not the way replies are usually done here, and I asked you to stop doing that back in 2010 at the Gender talk page (no matter that you must not remember). It's usually bad practice to tamper with others' posts, whether editing their text or repositioning it. See WP:TALK. I don't care if you continue to disagree with me. Just stop repeating yourself to me. Telling me over and over again that you feel this way will not make me agree with you or "see the light." You stress that it's my opinion? Yes, well two editors from Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not thus far, who built/helped to create the very policy you kept citing to support your argument (and continue to cite to support your argument), have also expressed the same opinion/made it quite clear that you have misused the policy. It is your formatting that is opinion more than anything. It's not based in guidelines or policy whatsoever. And, yes, merely implying that personal lubrication is required for anal sex is not sufficient. Saying that "the anus does not provide sufficient natural lubrication" clearly will not signal to everyone that using lubrication during anal sex is vital. You cannot definitively say that it will. And because such ambiguity won't, this is the reason why every researcher and medical site discussing anal sex precautions explicitly state the lubrication factor. There are many people who don't think to use lubrication when having anal sex, and some think that their own spit will suffice. This is why it is extremely important to be clear that anal sex "generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing, since the anus does not [provide] sufficient natural lubrication." As others, including myself, have told you, stating that is neither a how-to tone, an unencyclopedic tone, or any of the other tones you have accused it of being. No, I am not assuming that readers of this article are necessarily interested in trying anal sex. Or should be. Your asking those questions is exactly what I mean about you accusing me of promoting anal sex/having an anal sex obsession, except you outright accused me of it in January 2011! And I am tired of that ridiculousness from you. You say "please don't misconstrue this as an accusation of any kind because it's not." Um, yes, it is. And for the last time, I don't care if people have anal sex or not. I care about the precautions of anal sex being clear, should anyone reading this article decide to try it. Johnuniq was also clear to you about why this should be clear, but you continue to fail to grasp that, whether it's in the lead or otherwise. I care about this article being accurate about where pain or pleasure may come from during anal sex, and about all the other important things about anal sex that should be mentioned in this article. Letting readers know that personal lubrication is generally required for anal sex is not encouraging readers to have anal sex. That is your hangup. You continue to imply that I want readers to try anal sex, when I am actually indifferent on the matter and it is you who perhaps has some personal feelings about anal sex. You are the one, since having shown up at this article in January 2011, who has seemingly had an anti-anal sex stance, going on about how letting readers know ways that women may enjoy anal sex is some kind of promotion of anal sex. As if pleasure from anal sex is not going to be discussed in this article. Both pleasure and pain are obviously going to be discussed in this article. Oddly enough, you didn't have a problem with pleasure from anal sex for men being discussed, but maybe that isn't so odd, since you have sometimes displayed what I view as feminist attitudes when editing Wikipedia. Pain sometimes being due to psychological factors is discussed in the references citing such pain. Pain from anal sex is sometimes partly due to psychological factors or completely due to it, similar to dyspareunia in men or women (though dyspareunia is more common in women), and dyspareunia is mentioned in at least two of the sources about anal sex pain included in this article. I suggest you read the Dyspareunia article to see that sexual pain due to psychological factors is a real thing; this of course extends to anal sex pain.

And to reiterate, as well as touch on something else, you are wrong about "explicitly stating it" being unnecessary, and you are also wrong about the best-quality articles around here not explicitly stating, which just just how many articles around here (best-quality or otherwise) you have not seen. "[E]xplicitly stating it" is the usual way things are done around here, just like with the HIV/AIDS example I provided above. The best-quality medical articles around here explicitly state precautions; they are never ambiguous when relaying medical information. You call the line you debated about anal sex "relaying advice" when it is relaying a fact. What don't you understand about it being fact that adequate lubrication is crucial when engaging in anal sex to avoid pain and damage to the anus? Considering your resistance to this clarity, it can be argued that you do not want this very vital information relayed because you don't want people to have anal sex and so you want them injured so that they won't try it again. Extreme accusation? Yes, well, so is your accusation that "[I'm] assuming that readers of this article are necessarily interested in trying anal sex [or should be]." You can keep going on and on about how much you are right and how well you know what encyclopedic content is and isn't. All I see is your opinion. A very flawed opinion based on a policy that you have misused. So it has nothing to do with my not seeing the error of my ways. You see it as bragging when I state my experience in editing Wikipedia. But I see it as letting you know that you do not know more than me when it comes to editing Wikipedia and that you should therefore refrain from telling me how things should be done here. Every time you cite how things should be done here, whether it's placing "she" before "he," or this, it is based on either your opinion or a misuse of a policy or a guideline. Seeing as I have witnessed various WP:GA and WP:FA discussions, have elevated some articles to GA status, and have assisted others in getting articles to FA, I'm pretty sure that I have an idea of what "encyclopedic" is on Wikipedia. I don't need you to tell me. And since this discussion is going nowhere but in circles, and you seem to never be able to admit when you are wrong (even when it comes to what WP:LEAD explicitly states), and since enough editors have not weighed in on the how-to matter, I will now be starting a WP:RfC about it above. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Flyer22, I really don't have time for this kind of ridiculous drama. I am not going to trawl through another tantrum of yours. Surely you must be aware of WP:NOTBATTLE. There's obviously no point in me doing any more improvement work on this article, what with all the reactiveness, paranoia and acrimony that you invariably respond with.--TyrS 03:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If I have engaged in ridiculous drama, it has been a reaction to your ridiculous drama (such as you acting as though I've been the only one at fault in our interactions and citing a policy to me that you yourself have been quite guilty of on more than one occasion). I have not been paranoid in the least. I have been strongly responding to your accusations and insinuations. And as you know, we already disagree on what you consider improvements. And I'm not the only one to state that your edits were not improvements. Considering that I work on a variety of sexual and medical topics here at Wikipedia, we are bound to interact again. But it definitely seems best that such interaction come later, much later, rather than sooner. I don't have time to squabble with you either. I only spend this much time on Wikipedia these days when in an extensive debate. There are of course things I need to do off Wikipedia and there are Wikipedia articles I am focused on getting to GA status and therefore will be elevating to GA status, this being one of them. So when it comes to Wikipedia these days, my time is better wasted looking for reliable sources and better sources to replace existing ones while also noting what type of formatting/wording is best/GA reviewers will prefer. Flyer22 (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Coming here from WP:NOT, I think the problem is simply how to word the statement. There should be no problem sourcing it. Even something as obvious as this should not be based upon opinion if sourcing is available. As for whether or not it should be in the lede, my opinion has always been that insisting on something being in the lede is relatively inconsequential, and that a short lede is the best. It's been my observations that such insistence, as well as insistence upon exact wording, carrying an argument to multiple places, and attempting to change the wording of basic policy to accommodate a preference in a particular article, have all of them sometimes been POINTy--I am not saying this is the case here, but it is well to avoid giving that impression--at best, it's a sign of letting oneself get over-involved. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with this, DGG. I take your points. I've decided to 'retire' from working on this page for now as there are other pages I can focus on instead.--TyrS 03:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for weighing in, DGG. I've explained my stance on the wording, so I won't reiterate that to you. With regard to what should go in leads, I generally follow WP:LEAD, which partially states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I'm also strict about following its "normally no more than four paragraphs" guideline.

I understand what you mean about getting overly involved, but, as for carrying the argument to multiple places, we really needed (and still need) outside views on this and it seems that outside views are difficult to come by these days. I posted the topic at the relevant WikiProject talk pages, asking others to weigh in, as is supposed to be done, and it has thus far been ignored by those projects. And so one of the last resorts was to go directly to the source of "what Wikipedia is not" -- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

(Also coming from wikipedia talk:NOT)

1. A wp:summary style lead is most often the best choice, but wp:LEDE is not the only guidance to consider.
2. It's much more productive (and honest) to write the article text first and get agreement there, before summarizing it. Keep in mind that your wp:AUDIENCE will always include people you never thought of reading the article. You are writing not just for people who are thinking of engaging in a practice, nor for physicians, nor for forensic examiners, but mainly for those with a purely academic interest. Consider the reader who just hit "Random article" and found this one.
3. Opinions have value only when they are attributable to the best available secondary reliable sources. For medical assertions, use wp:MEDRS (a rather higher bar).
4. Don't cherry-pick the things in those sources to use statements which you think are important, instead reflect the importance that the reviewer assigned to them. There is no obvious reason that reviewers would omit this aspect of transmission risk. Some quick searches of PubMed show some primary sources on this aspect of the topic, but not secondary ones. Perhaps other (non-journal) secondary sources address it. There are some reviews on condom microbicides that might have useful discussions that aren't in their abstracts.
5. Avoid making statements about other editors. Focus on edits (actual and proposed) instead. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice on this, LeadSongDog. It's much appreciated. I'm going to work on other pages for a while as the conflict here seems to have gotten out of hand.--TyrS 04:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, LeadSongDog. WP:MEDRS is always on my mind when relaying medical information, which is one reason I will be trading out sources with higher quality sources when I begin to significantly fix up this article in an effort to get it to WP:GA status. As for secondary high-quality sources discussing the need for adequate lubrication during anal sex, there are definitely some out there. I was going to name this source as one of them, which discusses it among men who have sex with men, since it's coming from a peer-reviewed journal (American Journal of Public Health), but the Definitions section of WP:MEDRS states that "[m]any, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made." Despite that, its leads says, "Ideal sources for [biomedical] content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies."

Also, as was noted on your talk page, LeadSongDog, TyrS and I are waiting for you to clarify whether or not you consider the debated line to be a how-to violation. Masem and Johnuniq stated that it is not, and you seemed to be of the same mindset.

And thank you for reminding us to focus on the content and not the editor. I do not like being falsely accused of things, or having any such things implied about me, and I'm certain that TyrS doesn't like such interaction either. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have weighed in above in the RfC and I see no violation. Let's hope that TyrS can now drop the stick and walk away from kicking a dead horse. Collaborative editing often includes admitting that consensus is against one's opinion and then walking away from the matter, often never to return. To return and continually stir up the pot may be seen as a disruptive tactic. It's time to move on and leave this unpleasant interlude behind. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Amen! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog gave some very wise advice above (point 5, his) about how much more constructive it is to make statements on edits rather than on other editors.--TyrS 19:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

split on how-to

I'm split on what to do about how-to advice. First, I thought, okay, if it's not allowed, delete it; but then I saw that the sex positions article has plenty of it by way of pictures. And the line is thin. Ample anal sex article lede content is pretty close to being how-to advice anyway and it was left intact.

I'm concerned for how-to advice that promotes safety. Provided it's sourced or probably unchallengeable, I wouldn't be inclined to delete it, which is different than saying I'd add it, for which different considerations apply (I edit controversial articles and don't want to have to defend unauthorized edits).

A distinction can be made from other advice, such as pickup lines that are said to work or not, but even for those there doubtless are reliable secondary sources cataloguing a bunch of them and the subject is likely notable enough (I haven't looked) so that pickup lines are likely to wind up in Wikipedia, perhaps encyclopedically written (e.g., "in a study conducted in 1066, one in five women said that 'do you come here often?' was responded to by ....^[i]").

In one article with heavy controversy from another editor, I wrote plenty of content with almost every sentence saying roughly "According to ...", thereby attributing lots of statements to lots of different authors. It was stylistically bad but it accomplished its Wikipedian purpose. Since then, the controversy has quieted down and the passages have had some rewriting by another editor that improved style without much challenge, but that was later.

A solution: Wikipedia suggests another Wikimedia project as a suitable place to post how-to advice, Wikibooks, so post it there and link to it from here. (If the Wikipedia restriction is designed to reduce liability, I wonder whose, since the Wikibooks project belongs to the same organization that owns Wikipedia.) I think an interproject link can be informative: something like "For how-to advice see Wikibooks [title]".

Another solution: Go the extra distance to edit a passage that could be construed as how-to advice into a description of fact, such as "computers have power switches" instead of "you should power up your computer". The sentence in question about anal lubrication did not fit the latter model, but rewording from an abundance of caution, up to a point, might generally help.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Nick. You know that I always appreciate your commentary, especially how you think about things from every angle. With regard to the Sex positions article, like I stated at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, "The article as a whole does indeed look like a sex guide, but how else are the sex positions going to be listed and described?" ... I wouldn't really state that Seedfeeder's images are how-to, no more than the historical images in that article; it's just that combined with the descriptions of the sex acts in the article, and the number of Seedfeeder's images that are used in it, it makes the images look how-to. That's not what they were intended for when Seedfeeder created them, such as when only one is used in an article it is intended for.

As for this article, I can't consider the anal sex information about STDs, safe sex and lubrication "pretty close to how-to," any of the versions, per the comments from others in the RfC above, but I've already made my view on that known. And as Johnuniq stated at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not,"In general, policies like this do not attempt to spell out precisely where and how they apply—per not bureaucracy, rules specify principles and it should be pretty obvious that NOTHOWTO supports not giving how-to advice in sex articles, but as seen in the article under discussion, people do not always agree about what 'how to' means. And "Anyone who spends time at articles for deletion (WP:AFD) or several other noticeboards knows that there is an inexhaustible supply of editors who misunderstand or misuse policies and guidelines, no matter how clear they are." Flyer22 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Young people

In the the Health Risk section the word "young" is not necessary here, as persons of any age are subject to the same risks. The source cited after this appears to be a dead-ended anal sex "How To" from 1998 with nothing mentioned about "young" people participating any more often than the general population. The quote source is a sensationalized evening news article which admits that it is based upon anecdotes and rumors.

"Increased experimentation with anal sex by young persons without sound knowledge about risks and what safety measures do and don't work may be linked to an increase in sexually transmitted infections.[82] Judy Kuriansky, a Columbia University professor and author, stated, "It really is shocking how many myths young people have about anal sex. They don't think you can get a disease from it because you're not having [vaginal] intercourse."[83] Yerocus (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed "young" from the first line you took an issue with. It's nowhere close to being a good source anyway and will be discarded once I start significantly fixing up this article. But I did not remove "young" from the line citing Judy Kuriansky, because it is a direct quote and is specifically about young people. I'm not sure what you mean about the ABC News source admitting that its report is based on anecdotes and rumors, but studies have been finding what that source states. For example, similar findings are in sources used for the Female virginity subsection of the Heterosexual section. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a little joke....

Fucking assholes! 72.230.135.196 (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)