Talk:Sexual intercourse

Poor Use of Illustrations

This article should use medical illustrations that demonstrate sexual functions, particularly for those who have little alternatives in sexual education.

The images in the article are better suited for "depictions of sexuality" or "sexual intercourse in art." 66.68.207.59 (talk)

Choice of lead illustration

The lead illustration is captioned as showing "the missionary position, the most common human sex position", but it shows the woman with raised legs. According to the article, the basic missionary position is the version where no legs are raised. Would it not be more appropriate for the lead illustration to show that position? For example, the one in that section of the other article could be used. --98.158.139.69 (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you do not know already, this matter was already addressed: Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 8#Is Avril showing "missionary"?. There are clearly different types of missionary positions. And the current lead image of the Sexual intercourse article is the same current lead image of Missionary position article. For why we've settled on that image for the Sexual intercourse article, read the archived discussion I pointed you to (that is, if you have not already read it); it points to a more extensive discussion about the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Basic position section of the Missionary article you are referring to clearly currently states, "In the missionary position, a woman lies on her back with her legs comfortably spread either flat or raised toward her chest with the soles of the feet resting on the mattress." It was also like that before I made this recent edit there. That line is unsourced at the moment, however, and one aspect of that article that needs fixing up is its sourcing -- its lack of sources, and the fact that its poor sources need to be traded out for better ones. Going back to the picture aspect, the picture you pointed to clearly shows the woman with her legs raised. And I was clear in the aforementioned Is Avril showing "missionary"? discussion that a "legs flat" (as in actually flat) missionary position is not ideal for sexual pleasure...at least according to consistent research surveying women on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Reproductive behavior vs. Reproductive Behaviour

I noticed that one of these pages redirects here, while the other page points to another article. Which target should both of these pages point to? Jarble (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Jarble, have "Reproductive behavior" redirect to the Reproduction article like "Reproductive Behaviour" does, not only for consistency but because the Reproduction article is more fitting since it is strictly about reproduction and behaviors relating to it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

New sections per MOS

Flyer22, I have expanded the sections slightly and have more content and references to add. Please retain the sections to allow the addition of updated references and additional information that will improve the article. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Putting my objections to you editing near me aside for now, what part of WP:MOS states that the subsection headings you added are needed? I reverted you because I found those subsection headings as unneeded. This is your version of subheadings for the Health effects section, and this is my version. I generally follow MOS:Paragraphs when it comes to whether or not to create subheadings; the part that I mean is where it states, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." You stated, "created sections for easier editing." I stated, "Revert unneeded subsectioning. Per MOS:Paragraphs, we should not create subsections for a little bit of material. It is not easier reading; it makes the article look bigger than it is from t[he] table of contents." I feel that way about all types of articles, including film articles, as seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 56#Unnecessary subheadings, which violate MOS:Paragraphs, in the Box office sections. Out of that discussion, the editor who best understood what I meant was Betty Logan. I don't create subheadings with the idea of future expansion in mind; I create subheadings based on whether or not the article needs them at that moment. Because of this, I reverted you at the Anal sex article as well, as seen here (followup note here). Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

More noted in the #Style of the article section below. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference style

The article should generally be consistent with its reference style. Bit by bit, I have been changing the reference style of this article to be consistent. This edit by Bfpage, where Bfpage used Template:RP is not consistent reference style. Furthermore, I do not like that reference style; the reason why is because, besides resembling graffiti, it tends to distract our readers. I've seen IPs and registered editors confused about that reference style and remove the additional numbers because they don't know that they are part of the references. For an example, see this and this edit by Starburst9 (talk · contribs). I corrected Starburst9 with a note in the edit summary. You can see here that Starburst9 thanked me for the correction. Maybe Starburst9 is willing to explain here why he found that reference style jarring. Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I was told by Doc James to cite page numbers when referencing a medical text book. Will edit to hide page numbers.

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Mostly, I guess it was because I didn't know what it meant. Using "page" or "p." or something would be must clearer than just a colon...especially because its so rare, almost all refs give the range of pages for the whole ref. Starburst9 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Style of the article

Bfpage, regarding my not liking edit choices you make, it's because the way you edit conflicts with how I edit on a large scale and you make a lot WP:Newbie mistakes, like this recent heading matter in the Sexual intercourse article. You also seem to prefer list form as opposed to WP:Prose form more than I would like, as seen in this section at the Menopause article. That section currently looks differently, but has too many subsection headings. A subheading for a single-sentence paragraph? In the #New sections per MOS discussion above, I noted I do not like that type of editing and that MOS:Paragraphs is clear about that type of editing. Let's take this "Sexual intercourse and disabilities" section you added. Why do we need that section when we already have the "Duration and sexual difficulties" section, and disabilities during sexual intercourse are already mentioned there? We do not need a section for every topic that has to do with sexual intercourse. One paragraph for the sexuality and disability matter suffices, with the Sexuality and disability article being the article for in-depth material on it. And despite my stating that I do not like unnecessary subsection headings, you created this relatively small "Sexual intercourse after surgery" section, as if we need a section specifically for that topic and as if that section should be significantly expanded. As you know, I moved that section, but left your subheading for it intact for now.

With this edit, you stated, "rmoved redundancy." That quote within the reference is not redundancy. I added that quote for the following reasons: Because that reference is not only used for the most common definition of sexual intercourse, but also to relay the most common sexual position, and because the reference could become sort of a WP:Dead link at any time; by sort "sort of a WP:Dead link," I mean that those page numbers could become unavailable on Google Books while other pages in that book on Google Books are available. That source is also used for other things in the article as well, but those two matters are the most contentious. When people add quotes to references, as was done in this other case where you removed the quotes (and I noted, here and here, why the quotes were likely added), it is usually for a good reason. And as for this bit you added, how is that WP:Lead material? For one, stating "Typical sexual intercourse consists of sexual activity" is silly to me since sexual intercourse is sexual activity. For two, "with progression through the phases from attraction, arousal to relaxation with no problems, and with feelings of fulfillment, pleasure, and satisfaction" part is too strict; people experience sexual intercourse differently (for example, people don't always have sexual intercourse with a person because they are sexually attracted to that person), and its pleasure aspect is already covered in the first paragraph, including the other intimate aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I was tempted to significantly reduce the "Sexual intercourse and disabilities" content you added and to stick the remainder of it at the end of the "Duration and sexual difficulties" section where disability-related pain was already addressed. Instead, with this edit, I renamed the "Duration and sexual difficulties" section to "Duration and genital complications" and moved your "After surgery" content there, and created the "Other disabilities" section out of your "Sexual intercourse and disabilities" content and the disability-related pain content that was in the "Duration and sexual difficulties" section. I initially had the "Other disabilities" section titled "Physical and mental disabilities," but, given that the Disability article is currently so broad in its definition of what a disability is, and the content in the "Duration and genital complications" section could be considered disability content going by that broad definition, I went with "Other disabilities" for the title. Flyer22 (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Further tweaks here; in this edit, I note WP:Due weight for another reason why I don't think the death content needs its own section. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: The "Other disabilities" heading was recently changed by me with this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

Ewawer (Enthusiast), when it comes to edits like this (followup note here) and this, make sure that you are sourcing your material (per WP:Burden) and are sticking to what the sources state. I know that you aren't used to using WP:Citation templates and instead go on your knowledge of things and/or copy and paste references that you find in other articles, but even adding a bare URL would help; sure, bare URLs are far more likely to turn into a WP:Dead link, but at least it's a source and can be filled in with WP:Reflinks. Also, while adding citation templates is a pain, you can copy and paste a citation template already in an article, and fill in the correct information for the source you are applying it to. After this article was tagged with Template:Citation needed here, here and here in December 2014, I made this, this, this and this edit to add sources and further fix up the article; that includes the Marriage and relationships section you've recently added to. As you can see, it needs a little more sourcing and tweaks to the references. So I would rather that no more unsourced material is added to it, unless it will be sourced soon afterward. Then again, as you know, I will sometimes source things for you when I can. Flyer22 (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ewawer (Enthusiast), while I wouldn't call what you added here and here good sources, at least it's something. Thanks. I'll eventually look for better sources for that material, starting by looking to Google Books. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

123username, same as I asked Ewawer above: Do you have better sources for this and this material, and would you use citation templates? That stated, the BBC News and amnesty.org sources you added are okay. And the europa.eu source you added seems okay; I'm not sure about its reliability, though. Per WP:Dead link, bare URLs are not a good thing. If others don't add citation templates for the sources they add, then I or someone else has to do it. Of course, there are other citation styles, as seen at WP:Citing sources, but the vast majority of this article uses citation templates, and I prefer citation templates. Ewawer recently added a better source for his material, using citation template style. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What part is being contested? The part on divorce laws should probably go, the sources added by Ewawer do not even support the claims (I only made it more readable), but divorce legislation is very complex and varies so much by jurisdiction that it probably shouldn't be addressed here. Other than that, are there other problems? 123username (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Europa.eu is the official website of the European Union, so for things such as demographics it can be considered reliable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

123username, I'm concerned about the canons 1697-1706 vatican.va source and the law.moj.gov Criminal Code of the Republic of China source you added. As for Ewawer, yes, he at times engages in WP:Synthesis, which I indicated above. You think that none of the sources he added support any of the text he was editing?

Tgeorgescu, yes, I saw that europa.eu is the official website of the European Union, but seeing the "Translation controversy" section currently in that article made me wonder if it has other controversies and whether or not they pertain to the site's reliability. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources on divorce do not support the claims (and does not give a page). Now it's well known that most fault-based divorce laws will (at least under certain circumstances) grant a divorce for lack of marital sex. The concepts of "no fault divorce" and "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" have different legal meaning in different jurisdictions. In some (Sweden, Finland) no-fault divorce means divorce on demand: it is given on application without having to cite any reason. In other states you have to swear under oath that there is an "irretrievable breakdown of marriage". But in some jurisdictions you still need to prove to the court that your marital relation is damaged (lack of sex may be a proof) the difference being that the court will not assign 'fault' to any spouse (since it is a 'no-fault' system). The sources that are currently in the text do not discuss the issue of sexual intercourse between spouses as it relates to divorce. If the adultery source is not good, it's easy to find another one (such as [1]). I think the one for ratum sed non consummatum is ok, but even if it's not, there is a link to the main article so it should be fine. 123username (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for the purpose of discussion, in relation to divorce proceedings, whether on a fault or no-fault basis, divorce will normally not be granted if the couple applying for divorce are still having sexual relations; and in relation to grounds for divorce which do not involve true fault, such as "separation", "abandonment" etc, the time runs from the time of last sexual relations, and any sexual relations (if known to the court) stops that time from running. Enthusiast (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This depends on the jurisdiction that you're talking about. If the law requires that the court inquires what goes on in that marriage (whether or not 'fault' is relevant) then you're generally right. But some jurisdictions do not require that or require the analyzing of the marital relation by the court only when one spouse objects to the divorce, with consensual divorce being given without a need for any justification and without the court inquiring into the motives, with the agreement of the spouses being sufficient.123username (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

With this edit (followup edit here), I took care of the recent sourcing issues, specified some text (such as the marital exemption aspect), and expanded on some of the material. Regarding Ewawer's "The complete guide to divorce law" source, he gave page 9 for that source. Perhaps the URL for that source clearly showed the page when he added the source, even though it doesn't now. It's common for the pages of Google Books sources to become restricted, sometimes soon after accessing the source. This is why I sometimes add quotes from the sources in the reference templates. I would hate to think that Ewawer added that source when it supports none of the material. Flyer22 (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, looking at that page again (Ewawer's source), it's now working for me. Is it working for others? Looking at that source, the "With regard to divorce laws, in jurisdictions that have had or still have fault-based divorce law" and "In some no-fault divorce jurisdictions" sentences need more sourcing. Flyer22 (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I fixed my europa.eu formatting and cut away some text pertaining to Ewawer's source; this is because, as stated in that edit summary, I didn't see any sources for all of that material (when I looked on Google Books). Maybe I didn't look hard enough. What I saw is this 2006 Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior and the Law source, from CQ Press, page 112, stating, "In some of the states that have not completely abandoned fault-based divorce, abuse of drugs can be grounds for divorce." And this 2012 Family Law: Cases, Materials, and Problems source, from LexisNexis, page 386 onward, about adultery and similar (but not about witholding sex or failure to engage in sex). Flyer22 (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ewawer, I reverted you with this edit for three reasons: Firstly, of course, the topic of "marriage as the most appropriate union for sexual reproduction (procreation)" is relevant. Not only is it supported by the source I added, it is addressed in bullet-point examples lower in that section, with WP:Reliable sources supporting it; that is why I added the WP:Hidden note about it being addressed lower. In various religions and societies, there is a belief that sexual intercourse should only happen within marriage for the purpose of sexual reproduction, or that sexual intercourse within marriage should mainly or partly be for sexual production. The second reason for reverting you is that 123username objects to your removal of this text, and you should discuss that with 123username. The third reason for reverting you is that the no-fault divorce material I added certainly has to do with sexual intercourse; it is clear that no-fault divorces have afforded wives with greater control over their bodies, meaning their bodies are no longer for the husband to use at his will when it comes to sexual intercourse. We go by what the sources state on matters such as these, not personal opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

With this edit (followup edit here), I added back one of your wording changes and significantly cut down the no-fault divorce material I added; I did this so that it addresses the most relevant points. Again, the "have obtained greater control over their bodies" part is relevant per what I stated above and because it, including the marital exemption aspect of it, is addressed in the first paragraph of that section; so what I left in regarding no-fault divorce is not off-topic in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

More on sexual reproduction clearly seen with this edit, lower in the section. Flyer22 (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

___

Template:Globalize tag added to the Adolescents section

Dentren, I've been meaning to add more material to that section concerning other countries, so I appreciate you having reminded me of that by tagging the section with Template:Globalize. But the tag you used states, "The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with the US and the Western World and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject." Since the only text in that section that specifically addresses the United states is the "sex education and abstinence-only sex education curricula" text, I don't see how the section primarily concerns the US and the Western World. What other content in that section do you think is only a US/Western world matter? In what way are you looking for that section to be globalized? Template:Globalize is clear that, before or after adding the tag, you should explain your concerns here at the article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We need to take a closed look on which people the studies cited in the article are based. I doub't it will be Middle East, African or South and East Asian adolescents. Scrutiny is the word. Dentren | ^Talk 10:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Dentren, I considered that you might state something like that, but I don't think it's the way we usually assess matters with regard to Template:Globalize; I mean, we do look for sources that address how things are covered/viewed in different cultures, or sources addressing a specific culture so that we can use it as a diverse example. But it's not up to us to try to determine if the sources focused on Middle East, African or South and East Asian adolescents, and so on, if the sources do not state what country/culture the data is based on. Template:Globalize states, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa)." Unless we have solid reason to believe that the text stating "teenage pregnancy is often disparaged, and research suggests that the earlier onset of puberty for children puts pressure on children and teenagers to act like adults before they are emotionally or cognitively ready" only applies to the US/Western world, we shouldn't assume or imply that it's only a US/Western world matter; similar goes for the text stating "Some studies have concluded that engaging in sexual intercourse leaves adolescents, especially girls, with higher levels of stress and depression, and that girls may be likelier to engage in sexual risk (such as sexual intercourse without the use of a condom)," or the romantic relationships text. We don't state "According to American studies" for matters such as these, in the same way we don't for the Circumcision article. And we can only use what sources are available to us. Compared to the US/Western world, sex education and knowledge of sexual health in general are poorer in various countries/cultures. That stated, I will obviously see what I can do to globalize the section in question. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not have the time to check the sources right now, but I strongly suspect them of bias. If you feel uncomfortable with the tag remove it for now as it is based on a assumption (on good reasons). For the sake of clarity it doesn't matter who made the study, science is science everywhere, what matters is if the study subject is a subset (e.g. Taiwanese adolescents) and is then without explicit justification presented as universally representative. Dentren | ^Talk 08:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)