Talk:Sex position

Archives

1 2

Titfucking

• Mammary intercourse: using the breasts together to stimulate the penis through the cleavage. (Should not be confused with a "boob job" meaning to have augmentive surgery done on the breasts.) Also called a titjob, titty-fucking, a tit-wank, or a muscle fuck.

A muscle fuck is a word from the gay community and refers to male anal sex. Some troll added it. Please can a mod remove "muscle fuck" from that list?92.252.9.230 (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Sandwich picture" in fact illustrates "train sex"

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

We should not use the word "uncircumcised"

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

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

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

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

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

Other positions - scissor

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

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

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

Multiple penetration

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

Really you are not talking about a sexual position. You are specifying a type of penetration that may or may not be achieved through a variety of means (positions), This being the case perhaps there should be a separate page for discussion of different types of penetration.
To expand this point it's my opinion that some of the discussion or imagery diverge from the page topic/title in proper. The page is supposed to be informative on "sexual positions" so there shouldn't specific discussion about penetration. For example there is an entire section for the discussion of anal penetration which is superfluous as meany of the positions described in this section are the same positions described in other sections. such as doggy style and missionary. This section appears to be included only to describe anal penetration. This section can almost certainly be eliminated by adding to the already existing descriptions in other areas that both vaginal and anal penetration can be achieved in said position. This would seem to be more concise and less distracting from that page topic.
Furthermore the subject matter discussed in the topic "other positions" seems to be inconsistent as no positions are actually described. The only descriptions here are types of penetration. these types of penetration can be achieved from multiple positions. For example the depiction of anal fisting has the man laying on his back while this depicts the type of penetration being discussed the same penetration can be achieved doggy style as well and laying on the side.
I am unsure of what article standards the things I have mentions are actually in violation of but I'm pretty sure that most of these things are in violation of one or more article standards.

Requested move

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

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

---

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

• Oppose there is a merge tag on this article to merge "Sex position" into the list, and I think that is a better idea. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Er, I added that tag. I'm proposing a merge and then a move. To avoid losing the contribution history, the page currently at List of sex positions should be the primary page, but that would require deleting Sex position, which requires admin intervention, hence the Requested Move. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Your proposal here didn't state how you'd like to handle things (ie. merge, move, histories, etc). Aside from that, "list of sex positions" seems like a better title. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I speak in favour of merging Sex position to List of sex positions.Diptanshu^Talk 15:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• I have text-merged Sex position to List of sex positions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Now it looks like Sex positions would be the optimal title (the article is more than simply a list; on the other hand it deals with the topic of (the class of) sex positions rather than the concept of "sex position" itself (I don't know if that's a good explanation, but the idea seems intuitive to me), and the title should therefore be plural.--Kotniski (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Docking

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request from Phoebepuppy, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

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

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

Edit request from Fdemers, 4 March 2011

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

REASON: few females have a penis

SOURCE: any book on human anatomy should do

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

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

Nomenclature

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

Fisting

why are all the depictions hand drwan, then when you get down to fisting there is a real photo, i think that the picture has been used for shock purposes. either use all hand drawn for all depictions of positions or use real photos. 212.183.140.49 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

agreed. that particular image should be removed or replaced with a hand-drawn version, it does not feel like it belongs on this article 123.108.110.236 (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kylewestern, 1 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} External link edit to update URL for "The Sex-Position Playbook" at menshealth.com

Please change URL from http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?channel=sex.relationships&conitem=c1a1db9ba885f010VgnVCM10000013281eac____ to http://www.menshealth.com/sex-position-playbook/

Deadlink: http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?channel=sex.relationships&conitem=c1a1db9ba885f010VgnVCM10000013281eac____ Live: http://www.menshealth.com/sex-position-playbook/ Kylewestern (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done --RL0919 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Wiki-cunnilingus.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Wiki-cunnilingus.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request - Suggested link for external References Tomkz (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey,

I think this link should be included in the external references list... http://www.sexinfo101.com/sexualpositions.shtml

Cheers,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkz (talk • contribs) 04:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No thanks, per WP:EL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you wouldn't want this resource there? Have you taken a look at the sites that are?

• The-Clitoris.com – a short listing of positions with most of the page being ads.
• Sensualinteractive.com – a page of thumbnails that take you to a page with XXX advertisements.
• menshealth.com - a good link.
• Lesbian Sex Positions - a pretty sad collection of barbie pictures.

The link I am suggesting should be in this list as much as men's health, and more so then the other three that are there. Tomkz (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Tomkz (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You've already been answered. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

It currently says in the article: "Oral sex itself can never result in pregnancy." That is not entirely correct. It would be correct to say "Oral sex by itself can not normally result in pregnancy", but the never is overstating the case and suggests false certainty. There exists a case report of a pregnancy after oral sex and a subsequent stabbing, where the stab wound allowed the male sperm to reach the fallopian tube/uterus: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/811507-oral-sex-stabbing-pregnancy-story-could-be-true http://img2.tapuz.co.il/CommunaFiles/21227065.pdf 31.16.20.174 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The first article says it could be true, not it is true. Also, she didn't get pregnant by just oral sex, she also got stabbed to supposedly conceive a baby. Just oral sex can't get your pregnant. CTJF83 22:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions on SP graphics

I do not know if this has been suggested before about the pictures for Sex Positions and the like. How about using more uniform nondescript computer graphics of bodies using a neutral color (i.e. Silver or grey) with smoothing of facial features and etc to make things look as plain as possible but yet keep the general idea intact. Just a thought. Septagram (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Part of the reason for this is WP:NOTHOW. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be manuals, sexual or otherwise, and using only sex-manual-looking images would make this look a lot less like an encyclopedia article.-- TyrS  chatties  03:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Raunchy

Please can we do without the pictures of sex positions??? I caught my 14 year old son on my computer looking at this article. And simply put, I do not want to subject him to filth. I am not the only parent out there that has to remain vigilant of what our kids see and do online. I know that Wikipedia is not censored and that the pictures can be hidden, but God forbid, any person or pervert of any age, including a minor can come to this article and see the graphic pictures. I am not even sure if this article is encyclopedic. If it were, then Encarta or Encyclopedia Brittanica would have a similar article on sex positions, which they do not. Yoganate79 (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, we can't and wont, WP:NOTCENSORED. It's your job to watch what your child does, not ours. And 14?! I learned about sex-ed in like 7th grade. CTJF83 02:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that there is a way to hide the pictures so that readers can be given the option of clicking on them, but we have editors who would consider that to be censorship. I don't mind either way. I can of course understand Yoganate's concern, though. If I had children, I'd be the same way. I mean, while sex ed partly teaches people about the body's anatomy and how it relates to sexual intercourse, it does not teach people most of what is found in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

14 is old enough to learn about sex. If that's not happening then it's not surprising people come here to fill in the blanks. 86.169.180.177 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

By the age of 14 most boys have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of pornographic images. This may come as a surprise to some parents. Wikipedia is one of the few places on the internet where seemingly explicit images are used in a constructive, educational context. Young people will inevitably learn about sex one way or another. Learning about it from an encyclopedia is probably the best way a person could learn about it. Removing the images because some people find it offensive would create a very dangerous precedent for censorship. Many people may be offended by the information presented on various topics on Wikipedia, including politics and religion. The mission of Wikipedia is to provide the sum of human knowledge to all people for free. There is no discrimination when it comes to content. All knowledge is valuable. We should be thankful that knowledge today is not governed by the social norms of Victorian England. Withholding information (of any kind) from young people can be very harmful in the long run. Children have an innate desire to know everything. What could possibly be the benefit of delaying a child's intellectual growth and exposure to reality? The world is not censored and neither is Wikipedia. It is unfortunate and painfully ironic that anyone would think sex is the most offensive thing to be discovered in our brutal, violent, and merciless world...a world filled with disease, pain, poverty, injustice, and cruelty. And, yet, there are grown men and women in that same world who worry that their child might learn about love? BDS2006 (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

So a 14-year-old should be learning about every sex position there is? Learning about basic sexual activity is one thing. Learning about sex positions is another. The latter most definitely implies that the 14-year-old will be trying some or many of these sex positions soon. Kids (of an appropriate age to be told about it) should know about sex because it lets them know that sex is typically not a bad thing and it helps them be prepared for any consequences that may happen as a result of it. But saying that kids should know about sex positions? I can't see that as anything but encouraging kids to engage in sex. You could argue that they can learn about sex positions without trying it until they are late teenagers/adults, just like they can learn about basic sexual activity without trying it until they are late teenagers/adults. But, again, there really isn't any reason for children or early teens to learn about sex positions unless they are going to be trying them as children or early teens. Learning about basic sexual activity is for the reasons I mentioned. Learning about sex positions is for sexual pleasure. 216.201.161.162 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

Why does the article say "sex positions?" The word "sex" is NOT an adjective. The proper phrase is "sexual positions." If there is no dissent on this, I will change it around 1 March 2012.

Sexual positions sounds like we're referring to someone's sexuality. That's my two cents at least. Delierajaytoday (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Trio-FFF.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Trio-FFF.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Trio-FFF.svg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Threesome in colour.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Threesome in colour.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Threesome in colour.svg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 April 2012

In '"Group sex" - "With many participants" sub-section, change circle jerk to circle jerk (sexual practice).

173.81.153.14 (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well there's a term I didn't think I'd be typing today. Oh well.  Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A little representative diversity?

Wikipedia—Where Almost Everyone Demonstrating Something about the Human Body or Activity Is White, Circumcised, and Young.™ — President Lethe (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed -- TyrS  chatties  09:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We do need better images...

Reading through the article, I couldn't help noticing that the design of the computer-drawn images makes this article look far less educational or neutral than they were (I assume) intended to be. Specifically, in all of the hetero examples, the guy has his face hidden while the woman is angled to display aroused facial expressions; in the lesbian examples, they show the receiving partner's face, and neither man's face is visible in the gay examples. Everyone being shaved (except a lesbian & a guy) and -- as others have noted -- having a specific race/age didn't help matters.

I did thoroughly look at all of the other Wikipedia images I could think of that would show the naked human body, and none of them look remotely like these; they look like something we'd find in a textbook, complete with notes wherever body hair has been trimmed or removed. This article's images look more like they were stills from pornography that were run through a graphic program filter to make them cartoonish.

I'm not anti-porn/pro-censorship at all -- if anything I'd like to see more illustrations for the described positions as I couldn't imagine how they worked. My concern is just that the images currently in use don't look like they belong in a remotely respectable reference. I'd offer replacements if I had any drawing skills or knew where to look for images that offer the necessary rights/permissions. Xyzzy☥Avatar (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Might someone make some new images? Weaxzezz (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed

Specifically about the face angles/expressions, the porn-still-look that is characteristic of Seedfeeder's illustrations, and the lack of racial/age diversity.

Also curious is the fact that out of four illustrated acts of oral sex, every single 'giver' is female. I don't want to upset anyone, but it honestly does come across as a striking (visual) expression of heterosexual male systemic bias. That is a definite problem for the quality of the article in terms of balance.

The preponderance of the use of Seedfeeder's illustrations is helping to give this article the flavor of a how-to, which is (per WP:NOTHOW) inconsistent with basic WP quality standards for any article on any subject. An encyclopedic tone needs to be used throughout, and this applies to images as much as it does to words.

-- TyrS  chatties  22:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Seedfeeder has been a godsend as far as sexual images on Wikipedia go. His images are generally liked because they are so educational -- thorough in detail -- and are a good alternative to having images of real people having sex, which is always a hot topic here at Wikipedia due to such images immediately being viewed as pornographic. View the following discussion, for example: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 108#Fox news Artistic images are fine, but they are not the most detailed. I don't consider having excessive use of Seedfeeder's images in the article to be WP:UNDUE. That is not what WP:UNDUE means. So your WP:UNDUE tag at the top of the article is inaccurate. 202.113.64.219 (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Seedfeeders images are in a lot of ways very encyclopaedic - but, it is very non encyclopaedic to only feature those images. It is best to show diversity in in which images are a part of the article, even though all images need to be of high standard. Weaxzezz (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Gotta say, I don't find "Seedfeeder"s images encyclopedic at all. They are instructional in style and the vast majority of them would be much more at home at WikiHow instead.

Obviously many contributors to this page (and the other poor-quality sex-related pages) don't accept (or understand, or possibly just don't care) that Wikipedia policy states that articles are not supposed to be instructional in style. And of course people do tend to lose objectivity when it comes to sexual subjects. Despite that, Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual. Commons contains many art history images that can illustrate positions for this article in a truly encyclopedic way, without all the POV issues that go along with using so many images created by one user that (visually) express his totally subjective personal prefernces. --TyrS 01:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

202.113.64.219. while you are entitled to your opinions and feelings about Seedfeeder's images, that doesn't make my use of WP:UNDUE inaccurate. In any other WP article it would be obvious how unbalanced (and inconsistent with WP:HOWTO) the inclusion of such an excess of one person's illustrations is. WP articles are not meant to be manuals of any kind. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which means that editors need to attempt to maintain an encyclopedic tone, in images as well as words, regardless of the nature of the subject matter. And the historical images are not only extremely educational but provide historical context. An article in which 90% of the images have been drawn by one WP contributor is completely lop-sided.-- TyrS  chatties  04:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, regarding your concern with detail in these images, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your opinion again: the art/historical images most certainly do illustrate the positions in question with sufficient detail for an encyclopedia article.-- TyrS  chatties  08:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A bold person might make actual live person images. CTJF83 23:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That person would have to be some kind of grand master of visual semiotics to avoid the zillions of POV and NOTHOW issues that are pretty much unavoidable with photographs.--TyrS 01:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering how Xyzzyavatar objects to the current images partly because they "look more like they were stills from pornography that were run through a graphic program filter to make them cartoonish," I doubt that Xyzzyavatar feels that images of real people having sex would be better. If anything, that would give this article even more of a porn feel and there's no teling how many objections per day this talk page would receive. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a reason to add unneceassry images that would distract away from the article more than they would add to it. I'm usually not anti-porn either, but this is an encyclopedia and real-life images of sex acts would make this article feel unprofessional/unencyclopedic. The images in the Human penis article, for example, are fine. But displaying real-life sex acts is porn, and there's no way around that. The same can be said of these animated drawings, but the porn feel is significantly reduced by having them as opposed to any real-life images. Even with the flaws Xyzzyavatar mentioned, this is no reason to discard these images and replace them with real-life images. And while more diversity is good (different ethnic backgrounds, not everyone's genitals being shaved or trimmed), I don't see it as a huge problem that the penetrator's, or simply "the top's," face typically isn't shown. Not only can the giver's face not be shown for some of these positions, the giver enjoying the experience is implied just by the fact that sex is occurring and that the receiver is enjoying the experience. 216.201.161.162 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree (Though I have a quibble about the last sentence - what may be inferred by different viewers varies.) Images from art history, of which examples abound on Commons (some just need a bit of cropping to focus on the relevant subject matter) do the job far better than Seedfeeder's instruction-manual-style drawings, which of course vividly express a very specific personal POV (white, male, heterosexual, shaved vaginas, males not shown performing oral sex, etc). The place for editors wanting to put together what is in fact an instruction page rather than an encyclopedia-quality article is WikiHow. -- TyrS  chatties  07:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the imbalance/lack of diversity & how-to/manual-look problems

I have just added this image to illustrate cunnilingus. It is currently the only 1 out of 5 oral sex images in the article where the 'giver' is male. Because of layout, as well as balance/POV and WP:NOTHOW-related issues (see discussion above), Seedfeeder's drawing of the woman performing cunnilingus is no longer needed here. I suggest therefore that it be removed. I will remove it myself in a couple of days if there is no further discussion about it here.-- TyrS  chatties  00:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the image of the woman performing cunnilingus. It's one of the images adding balance to the article. Removing it leaves only heterosexual oral sex in the article, other than the female-on-female analingus image. Just because it's a woman performing oral sex, it doesn't mean that it adds inbalance to the article. It's a woman performing oral sex on another woman, one of the few homosexual sex images we have. Even resorting to any such images of real people available at Commons shows mostly heterosexual oral sex.

I take your point about it being the only homosexual oral illustration currently in the article.-- TyrS  chatties  03:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, regarding your edit about the missionary position,[1] it actually is the most common sex position. Various scholarly sources state that. And, really, we see it in the media more than any other sex position, so that's common sense. 202.113.64.219 (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue, 202.113.64.219, is lack a of cited references (and you are more than welcome to cite the "various scholarly sources" you mention) for such a huge claim ("the most commonly used sex position" implies that it's talking about the entire world - I doubt the data exists to definitively 'prove' this). More references would remove the need for "according to one book".-- TyrS  chatties  04:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised, that nobody seems to have adressed it yet, but none of the pictures show any protection (condoms…). Of course this is understandable with the historic images. But with Seedfeeder's drawings? Daadler (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Monty Python trivia

4th item in cunnilingus list had: "Humorously popularised in the Monty Python song "Sit On My Face" (1980)". This type of isolated cultural trivia obviously doesn't belong in the main body, if it belongs at all. Perhaps in a separate "Sex positions in popular culture" section.-- TyrS  chatties  23:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Filthy Pictures

Please! I Once AGAIN I caught my 14 year old son viewing this article with sexually explicit pictures. I know that Wikipedia is not censored but there must be some compromise involved. Please! This is an academic and intellectual web site that can be assessed by children of any age. What is even worse, I have checked Encyclopedia Brittanica's web site and there is no article dedicated to "sexual positions". I understand that a lot of you who edit this article are perverts, but that doesn't give you the right or an excuse to expose innocent childen who have no control over the content that they view.Yoganate79 (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

YOU are the one exposing your child to what YOU believe is "filthy" by your own lack of censorship. Get some software and control your own child. There is nothing wrong with these articles or the pictures within. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.255.129 (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Give me a break. A 14 year old should be trying to figure this stuff out. What's more is that there is a whole lot of stuff a lot worse than encyclopedic descriptions of sex on the Internet. Your kid is ONE CLICK away from HD color full-motion streaming live video of every possible sex act in the imagination of mankind since the dawn of time and your worried about drawings of sex positions?! Watch your own kid. Stop trying to censor the English-speaking world with your ideas of what's right and wrong because your son wants to see drawings of naked people.

No... a 14 year old should not be trying to "figure this stuff out." A 14 year old should be trying to concentrate on his school work, participating in sports, and spending time with his friends and family, not looking at a bunch of smutty pictures and text plastered all over Wikipedia. I have a feeling though that you would even tolerate a kid younger than a 14 year old trying to "figure out this stuff" too. So where do we draw the line? Any child of any age can access this article. That is the problem!Yoganate79 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No....you draw the line on all censorship. So Wiki caves in and removes the drawings on Anal Sex and Bukkake because its just too much for you. Then what? I have a feeling though that you would even not tolerate drawings of the Doggie Position or maybe even Missionary Position. The line is that no one person or group decides what is right or acceptable for all others and parents begin parenting and stop forcing their beliefs on others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.232.235 (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here's the reason Wikipedia does not, can not, and will not censor to meet individual and personal sensibilities, morality or religious world-views. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms. However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.

Give me a break, do your damn job as a parent and monitor your child or put blocking software on. It's not our job to make sure your child doesn't look at what you deem inappropriate. Also, at 14, they are probably learning sex ed in school anyway. You're the worst type of parent, blaming everyone else for what's your job. CTJF83 23:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed: Addition of animated "reverse-cowgirl" demonstration

thumb|Reverse cowgirl

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverse-cowgirl-animation.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.161.45 (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've nominated this image for deletion. The reasons should not be discussed here, but on the deletion page. Please contribute there. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason for deletion, as I've explained there. Sex-position-demonstration (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed: Addition of animated "reverse-cowgirl (prone)" demonstration

The reporting IP User has been blocked as a troll per WP:ANI#Request additional review of disruptive editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The image is here: File:Reverse-cowgirl-prone-animation.gif, and in this one no subjects are identifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sex-position-demonstration (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I'm afraid that one is up for deletion as a copyright violation now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Why? (compare with: the uploader's Talk page at Wikimedia Commons) 150.135.161.192 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC) There's no evidence there was any copyright violation, so why did the administrators (e.g., "Martin H."): censor it (Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reverse-cowgirl-prone-animation.gif); block the uploader (Commons:User talk:Sex-position-demonstration); violate the official blocking-policy (Commons:User talk:Sex-position-demonstration); and censor legitimate grievances about their own policy-violations? (Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems)? It just looks like they're on some kind of religious crusade, enacted through cronyism and illegitimate censorship. -- 150.135.161.194 (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I don't know if you are deluded or just trolling, but I suggest that you quit while you're ahead (which is to say, only blocked on Commons). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC) There's no evidence the poster was either deluded or trolling, so why did you make that accusation? There is little point complaining about your Commons woes here. --JN466 03:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Improper censorsip harms the readers and the Wikimedia Foundation more than it harms the person who was censored. 206.207.225.51 (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC) never mind the copyright status, the clip is too poor quality to use in any case. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC) And it has been deleted, so it's a moot point. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC) It's not moot, because the deletion is appealable under the pertinent policy, and there's no evidence that the deletion was made for any reason allowed under the policy. 150.135.161.45 (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC) According to the deletion discussion, it was a copyvio of a commercial porn clip. But if you want to appeal it, go ahead and knock yourself out. Kaldari (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 September 2012

I see in many places "Most of these positions can be used for either vaginal or anal penetration.", this doesn't need to be repeated everywhere because the section "Anal sex positions" already specifies that "Most anal sex positions are adaptations of vaginal penetrative positions". Also because, by repeating it so often, it degrades the litterary style of this article, and it emphatises on a practice that most women, like myself, find unpleasant, and most women are tired of meeting men who ask it as if it was a usual practise to expect. Then after the sentence "Anal sex positions involve anal penetration." I would like to add "Note that anal penetration can also be performed by a woman equipped with a sex toy such as strap-on dildo."

Lilla saga (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be repetitive, but I don't believe it is done to emphasize a practice that "most women find unpleasant" but rather to be gender and orientation neutral because gay and bisexual men often find it quite pleasant as well as the women who enjoy it. JVB — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannVanbeek (talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)  Not done:Mainly per Johann, but also because it is easier to have it in more that one place to "make it clear". Mdann52 (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Those women who has sex during pregnancy are whores who don't care about their future children.