Jump to content

Talk:Woman on top

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.29.87.28 (talk) at 07:48, 9 March 2016 (→Amazon Position: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Request for comment: Including a disputed image in this article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus determined that the image is not suitable for use in this article. --Muchness (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on the above discussion Is this picture acceptable?, I'm filing this RfC to see if we can get definitive consensus on whether or not to include the image File:Sex intercourse.jpg in this article. --Muchness (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not appropriate for this article - This picture may be acceptable for use in other articles (although I don't know where, because even Amateur pornography does not provide samples) but does not add any encyclopedic value to this article beyond what the line drawings and old artwork already depict. Note that none of the other sexual position articles contain this style picture.  7  00:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen some other discussion on category:sex articles about the same problem - "picture or drawing". The result was drawing on the basis that there was no evidence of permission given from all the people in the photograph. That seems a reasonable argument to put forward. This particular picture is from Flickr, which makes it harder to test that question. Maybe we need to modify a policy to fix this problem once and for all - as this is not going to be the last page that has this problem. And on that basis I shall vote! for Not appropriate  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope The multiple images already illustrate the subject more than adequately, it's not rocket science. There's no benefit from it so no need to bother venturing near the censorship>y/n? mire. Someoneanother 02:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not appropriate for this article - This image provides no benefit to the article. A drawing would be more appropriate. Calvin (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure if the question is (1) if this kind of picture is acceptable, is this particular picture acceptable? or (2) is this kind of picture acceptable at all? If it's the former, it's just a primarily a question of whether it merits inclusion. If it's the latter, I'm not clear on where Wikipedia stands legally regarding pictures of intercourse. Wikipedia:Sexual_content, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines, WP:Pornography, Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, Commons:Nudity, Wikipedia:Historic debates#Clitoris and Autofellatio are some pages that seem relevant. Шизомби (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not appropriate The drawings sufficient add to the content of the article. The photograph merely adds shock value while raising legal issues due to its pornographic nature. Eastshire (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not appropriate – as mentioned above, the line drawings provide sufficient anatomical information, and the various artistic depictions provide variety. That file is nothing but a can of worms, for all the reasons mentioned above. Comment to Shizombi – per the RfC as opened by the requesting editor, I take this to be only a discussion of the suitability of this image for this article. If we want to establish a policy/guideline about photographs of real people performing sex acts, we'd better do that at some more centralized page. I also suspect that that question has come and gone several times; my impression is that consensus rests with the line drawings. — ækTalk 05:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not appropriate – Wikipedia might be in for some legal weather when you take into account that most nations require prior notice before showing explicit content. Marxmorley (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Where to begin? The image is grainy, badly focused, incorrectly lit, and suffers from a diseased composition which reduces people to their pelvises. In any other context, this photograph would be considered utter junk. The article's existing illustrations are far more informative in any event. Having no encyclopaedic purpose, the inclusion of this photo could only suggest puerile exploitation for shock value. Jennifer500 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That picture

We seem to be getting endless reverts to the agreed consensus of not showing the photo, by IP users. I've taken the bold step of semi protecting for a month.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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: not moved. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woman on top (sex position) → Woman on top —

I've just proposed that page name be changed - Talk:Woman_on_Top#Requested move  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

That photo

I've just removed yet another re-addition of the photo discussed above - hope we're not in for another attack of it from IP editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squatting Position

Squatting Position is not well defined. there is no photo either.

some photos: here, here, and here.--78.162.169.51 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly we cannot pinch photos from other sites unless they are clearly defined as "public domain" or a suitable "creative commons" license - I doubt if any of those will be allowed.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amazon-variant-sex-position.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Amazon-variant-sex-position.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:Amazon-variant-sex-position.svg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cg position.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cg position.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:Cg position.svg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:DCNG-amazone.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DCNG-amazone.jpg, 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:DCNG-amazone.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reverse-amazon.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Reverse-amazon.jpg, 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:Reverse-amazon.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting partner

"the inserting partner lies on his or her back". Should it not be enough with the "his" part here? Surely a woman does not have anything to insert?? --Oddeivind (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the type of woman in question (Transgender), and what she's into (Strap-on dildo) --24.12.0.7 (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History and Culture

Why is there no section about cultural views of Woman on top position? There is such things written about missionary position. I think it would be interesting to read about historical and cultural views on this position. But I do not know anything about those things. Cannot someone get such facts, please? Mr Fang 72 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFang72 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition

Any reason not to make this addition: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman_on_top_(sex_position)&diff=prev&oldid=509970602 ? 150.135.161.113 (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking about this little gif video thumb|Reverse cowgirl (sitting). I object to it because it has the look and feel of internet porn. This is absolutely the sort of thing you'd see on Xhamster or YouPorn. Somebody viewing the page (or somebody looking over that person's shoulder) would gain an impression that this was a pornographic page rather than an educational one. It would not in fact change the nature of the page, but one of the conditions for the page working as education is that the viewers (and maybe people looking over their shoulders) accept it as such. That said, it's not a bad illustration of the subject and would help an ignorant viewer's understanding. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the proposed image is an instance of "porn", i.e., "the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter". You assume, "Somebody viewing the page (or somebody looking over that person's shoulder) would gain an impression that this was a pornographic page rather than an educational one," but why can't it be both? It illustrates the subject specificly, clearly, and in detail. Shouldn't our concern be the actual nature of the page, and not how it might be "accepted" by some bystander looking over people's shoulders? 150.135.161.113 (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've nominated this image for deletion (which would stop its use anyway). The reasons should not be discussed here, but on the deletion page. Please contribute there. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but your nomination hasn't been ratified, so this discussion here should remain live. 150.135.161.113 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. — ΛΧΣ21 03:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woman on top (sex position) → Woman on top – Title redirects here already. Unreal7 (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Amazon Position

no mention of the Amazon Position? as described here: http://badgirlsbible.com/amazon-sex-position

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woman_on_top&oldid=709123856"