Talk:Anal sex

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anal sex article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Anal sex is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 1, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Sexology and sexuality B‑class High‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fistula

I removed the claim that anal sex can cause fistulas. I did a pubmed search and I couldn't find a single claim that this was the case.

Is this article about homosexual intercourse or anal sex?

There seems to be a focus on men having anal sex with each other rather than both heterosexual and homosexual situations. The discussion of pederasty seems deeper than it ought to be for the purposes of this article. The article didn't used to be this way. Trau

Agreed - its back to its former homosexual focus - again! Rgds, --Trident13 11:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. They even got rid of the pictures that depict the heterosexual nature of anal sex, like the picture of an ancient Greek vase depicting a man having anal sex with a woman. They should put it back. --Bloody Pierrot

That's because gay people come to this page and edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.208.135 (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Virginity

I'm deleting this section (again) becuase its been up for a while now and currently makes a lot of claims with no citations whatsoever,Velps 02:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then try and find some citations, and if you cant then delete it. Dont just delete sections that arent controversial without looking for cites. VanTucky 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Velps 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escherichia coli

There should be some reference to the danger of Escherichia coli infection that can be transmitted through this practice. [1][2][3] 207.195.252.122 17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your statements with four tildes (~). As far as the danger goes, I'd say most people realize you can get sick from contact with feces. VanTucky 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it's a good assumption. There is a section in this article in relation to the health ramifications of the practice; adding a sourced note about E. Coli doesn't seem like a bad idea. Considering the severity of the infection, I think it should be added. 207.195.252.122 17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, go ahead and add it to the list of contractable diseases/infections. Try and make a footnote for ease of reference, and be bold! VanTucky 20:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the article is locked to newly registered users. Maybe someone else can add it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.46.39 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Unprotected receptive anal sex is the most risky sexual behavior in terms of HIV transmission"

Uh, can you tell me how? It's only risky if you cut the person's anus, however, you can receive HIV as soon as you insert your penis into someone's vagina, since HIV is transmittable via vaginal fluid...--Tainted Drifter 02:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not even enimas can flush all traces of fecal matter and white blood cells. — Deckill er 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientifically, anal sex is most dangerous because (for a variety of reasons, including that the anus provides no natural lubrication) it most easily causes minor internal injury/bleeding, which therefore vastly increases the risk of HIV transmission. This is not a controversial fact. VanTucky 02:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is fact. The biology of the anus/bowel and its ability to absorb fluids creates a much higher risk then receptive, unprotected vaginal sex. The vagina is designed to remove fluids from the body (thats why medicine is sometimes delivered to the body via the anus, i.e. an enema, rather than the vagina). The medication is rapidly absorbed through the lining of the bowel and transported around the body via the bloodstream. This ability of the bowel to absorb fluids makes unprotected anal sex 4 times riskier than vaginal. Tapunoa 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References need proper formatting

Anyone with spare time please reformat the references so they ~~display properly on most browsers. Long URLs that display as themselves cause problems.~~ use the proper format. I've fixed the links that were causing display errors in the references section, but I didn't do it the right way consistently. Dfpc 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US vs. British English

The article currently uses US English. Earlier today someone changed a word to UK English. Switching to UK English is fine but only if it is done throughout the article, not just one word. Of course, direct quotes in the articles or references should be left in the original form. See WP:SPEL. Dfpc 17:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomical Homologies

Is it's own section because it is not neccessaryly concerned with penile/anal intercourse, the section people keep putting it in. Other things are used to stimulate the prostate. This is a section about anatomy, and is not a subsection of the section above it. pschemp | talk 17:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Islam and anal sex

I have spent the last several years in the Iraq and Kuwait. A not commonly know attitude in the Arab world is “Woman are for babies, boys are for fun”. This is a reference to anal sex for the gratification and male domination of another man being acceptable. The receiver in this engagement is called a “Dewdeckee” (sp), a term that I have only been able to translate to something roughly as the jailhouse term “Punk”. An intimate homosexual relationship is forbidden under Islamic law and while result in death. However young boys are allowed to engage in anal sex with each other up to the age of 15 with no stigma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.31.71.198 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately, that would be classed as original research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.46.39 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm hearing repeated stories of this and it's common knowledge being brought back from the Iraq/Afgahnistan theaters... shieks offering food, drink, boys... Thursday is referred to specifically as the day of man/man loving. It's entioned inthe novel "The Kite Runner," but seems to be kept on the down low culturally, but it's common knowledge "over there." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.132.3 (talk • contribs) 02:07, August 4, 2007 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to be biased toward considering heterosexual anal sex to be normal. I have added a statement to the first paragraph: 'However it is certainly done more by gay men.'. I know this could be said better, and probably with a source. However the preceding text implies that anal sex happens more frequently among heterosexuals. Though more heterosexuals have engaged in anal sex (by numbers), I am cetain they engage in it less often and that need to be said. The way, the truth, and the light 12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already did say that. All you have done is introduce repetition. It says "Anal sex is encountered among people of all sexual identities and orientations. While it is reported more frequently among male couples, in absolute numbers more heterosexual couples have anal sex." The sentence "while it is reported..." means that recorded evidence is that gay men do it more often (per couple) but that heterosexals do it more often in absolute numbers. Adding "however it is certainly done more often by gay men" just repeats the first statement in a dogmatic manner. Paul B 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it didn't. I rephrased it to be less misleading while accurately reporting the source. I think we should probably use a more official source in the lead paragraph, though. The way, the truth, and the light 13:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it did. However the rephrasing is problematic because the statistics are changing all the time. Paul B 14:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have three surveys cited that support the proportion of heterosexuals that have ever had anal sex is around 30%; given that, the claim that 30-50% regularly do it is preposterous. ~~One article in an alternative newspaper (which hasn't been properly cited) can't possibly outweigh three scientific surveys; on that basis, I've removed it.~~ The way, the truth, and the light 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a quotation from a doctor, who did not say that 30-50% did it regularly. He said that proportion had done it, many of them regularly. The version of the sentence you reverted said nothing about proportions of regular practitioners. Paul B 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now. I was confusing that reference with the edits of another user, User:Haiduc, who had been inserting the claim that 30-50% do it regularly. The way, the truth, and the light 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Quotes

This article seems to avoid saying outright the Bible's comments on anal sex. It mentions Sodomy and vague references to cities being destroyed, but actually the Bible is far more explicit. "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Leviticus 20:13" Obviously I don't agree with that view in the slightest, but if you are going to have a section about Christianity and anal sex, I believe you should put that in. Of course, the article is protected, so I can't. Could someone do it for me? 129.67.50.195 19:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a large article on Wikipedia about this stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality#Leviticus_18_and_20) maybe a link to that in the section would be useful? I assume the same will be true for the other religions 129.67.50.195 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the page as a {{main}} link under Christianity. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The biblical quotation says nothing about anal sex. Yes, it is reasonable to assume that "lies with a man as one lies with a woman" refers to it, but it's an inference not a fact. In addition, the passage does not condemn heterosexual anal sex, and the other ritual purity rules in Leviticus are generally held to be abrogated in Christianty. Paul B 00:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted myself and removed the link, as this page isn't necessarily about homosexuality. Plus, we already have a homosexuality and Christianity page. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An inference? It's really quite clear cut... But if you don't want that kind of reference then you should take out the whole Christianity section. The whole Sodom section is a bit of an inference itself! 88.110.254.23 09:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I guess you have to seperate anal and homosexuality pretty carefully. Though I still think that section needs a bit of work, it is going to be hard to find references to Christian views on anal as they are intertwined with their views on homosexuality. Whoops, my IP has changed. 129.67.50.201 11:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HPV vaccine

The statement about Gardasil (the vaccine to prevent human papillomavirus) should be clarified. In the US, the vaccine is only approved for girls and women 9-26 years of age, while in the UK it is licensed for boys and girls aged nine to 15 and women aged 16 to 26. The statement in the Prevention section "presently licensed for use in children" could be misleading. Waldstein53 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree so I've removed the mention of presently licensed for use in children. There is no need IMHO to go into so much detail anyway. The HPV vaccine article which I've linked to can go into the detail. Also as there is more then one vaccine I've changed it from the vaccine to a vaccine. Nil Einne 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add in an anal sex "userguide"

Hi there. I have a wonderful contribution I'd like to add, to the benefit of society with regard to anal sex.

It is a tried and true methodology where I inform the reader on the proper methods of attaining anal sex. Its not a porno or something like that, but i hope to educate people on the proper methods of getting anal sex from a woman because I feel guys out there either dont have access to proper instruction OR really just need someone to break-it-down for them. And since I am quite successful at it, I want to spread my knowledge.

Besides, I want more woman to enjoy the pleasures of anal without having to go through so much of the pain. I have some methods which will accomplish this and I feel Wiki is a great vehicle to reach people. Please let me know what are the necessary steps. While I focus on a hetero-anal situation, I assume it could work on homo-anal as well; I just do not have experience there (I go for girl's butts only).

I can post it so you could review (hey, then you would have the info. lol). We can rephrase anything that is too graphic or porno but I tried to be as scientific yet hip sounding as I can. I feel you need to reach your audience as well as hold a high standard of professionalism in writing.

Please let me know what you think, I seriously would love to contribute. I am a member of Wiki but right now I prefer to be anonymous on this request until I hear back.

Thanks.

--76.104.131.12 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Exploding Boy 17:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there are many topics here where things are detailed out. I honestly think my content should be given a chance. It is good content and is a topic that lots of people would like to learn about. I feel that I ahve not found anything that REALLY gets at the topic of anal sex with a woman but my experience is invaluable. that is not to brag but to say that those commercial sources are just that, commercial. they only give half of the answer so you will buy their books. But by my posting, I could provide a service of information that will be gratifying to women and men as they explore their sexuality.

Please reconsider. Please respond.

76.104.131.12 19:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can change the policy Exploding Boy referred you to above (though discussion and consensus), then maybe you can add it. Otherwise, no. It will be reverted. Sorry! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is not WP:NOT, which is does not preclude information of the kind you suggest. The problem is WP:OR which precludes so-called "original research", which essentially means pet personal theories or claims to knowledge that can't be verified. If what you say can be sourced, it might be OK to add it. You could propose text by adding it to the talk page here, or by creating your own user page and putting text for discussion there. Paul B 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still wouldn't be acceptable because, whether it's original research or verifiable sourced info, Wikipedia is still not a how-to guide. Perhaps it would be acceptable at Wikibooks? Exploding Boy 22:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying this, but I don't think it's quite that simple. The WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section refers to adding indiscriminate information, including "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes". That does not precude discussion of medical issues and practices. Paul B 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I haven't edited the article for a while, but it used to have a medical section. But this user is proposing to (and I quote) "educate people on the proper methods of getting anal sex from a woman." That clearly falls under "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals." Exploding Boy 01:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess he wishes to give us the benefit of his expertise with the ladies, but it remains unclear until he actually tells us! Paul B 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a particular need. It's obviously original research: he says as much. Exploding Boy 05:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I dont want to cause trouble. I just want to inform people who might be interested in but having trouble with anal sex. My experience is with females, but I suppose the methods could work with males as well. While my writing is original, Im sure some of it is available in anal sex manuals. But I give some more specifics - such as "be sure to listen to the lady. Its your job to determine when she is ready for sex and it is your duty not to rush. The connection between the mind and the female physiology is what you are trying to control, which is one of the many rules of anal sex. So listen to her, connect with her body movements and/or oral expressions as you caress her/kiss her and prepare her for anal lovemaking ... " So forth.

That is just a quick summary of what the writing contains. Of course, we can edit or change some of the language but I intentially have some of it in a coarse manner because I feel you can reach certain people that way and they will continue reading. As far as I have seen/read, there really hasn't been anything published to date which gets down to the issue of properly having anal sex with a woman - especially one who was violated because some guy just stuck it in there and started pumping. I stress things like trust and patience - and once you get this from a girl that likes you and you get her relaxed, then you can pound away, tearing up her insides and forever leaving her in the world of anger against anal and men that want it.

Honestly, my only purpose is to spread what I've found to be the proper techniques for this method of lovemaking. Its not to be proverted or anything negative. I'd like to see the day when you could approach any female and discuss anal sex with her and she would not cringe but instead would be interested because someone like me taught her the correct way.

Let me know, I can somehow post the materials so you can review and determine the best place for it. I do have a user id so I could set up a user web page or some other method. But I'd like to contribute my writings anonymously for public benefit.

76.104.131.12 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not appropriate for Wikipedia. We don't do instruction manuals. You need to find another place for it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in lieu of a userguide, might i suggest a section which compiles the tips that are most often suggested on how-to sites? thats not original research, and not so much a manual as a commentary on the sex-positive community's attitudes on the subject... it would be of interest to pretty much anyone who read this article. --PopeFauveXXIII 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind... i just noticed, all of that is sufficiently covered in the "Protective measures" section. --PopeFauveXXIII 21:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think we can all agree that "Its your job to determine when she is ready for sex" is a statement that most women wouldn't take kindly to. Whatever, though. If you feel a need to publish this stuff on the web, you're going to have to create your own website. Exploding Boy 23:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of heterosexual buggering

It is unacceptable that this article continues to be used as a vehicle to promote the canard that anal sex is the domain of gay men. The image of the man and woman having anal sex is necessary for balance, and since more opposite-sex couples that same-sex couples practice this form of intercourse, it must appear before any depictions of a same-sex couple. If you do not like this image, find another man/woman image with which to replace it. Haiduc 11:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Haiduc, is that we can't say that it is an image of anal sex. It could just as easily depict "doggy style" vaginal sex. It's absurd to have an ambiguous image as the principal one. The article discusses heterosexual anal sex in detail. Paul B 11:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the claim that "more opposite-sex couples than same-sex couples practice this form of intercourse", I don't think we can say that with confidence. World wide statistics are unavailable, and even in Western countries the evidence concerning numbers and frequency is not clear. Paul B 11:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, by that logic, we do not know what "Hadrian" is doing either. He could be diddling Antinous, or it could be intercrural. Let's compromise by getting rid of the leading paragraph image altogether until we can get a confirmed man/woman pairing. As for the statistic, please do not argue ab nihilo. We need to go by what we know, and if you want to restrict that by specifying that the statistics only represent Western studies that is fine. Haiduc 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think we can be fairly confident about what Avril intended us to imagine that Hadrian is doing. We can't be confident at all about the other image. There are lots of explicit images of heterosexual anal sex, but they tend to be pornographic photographs. Unambiguous paintings and drawings are difficult to find. I dont know why you are so obsessed by the idea that the lead image has to be heterosexual. We simply have no evidence here as yet about how many acts overall are hetero and how many are homo - even in the US. Paul B 11:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every so often this article degenerates, then it's pulled back together, then the cycle begins again... The current opening, which suggests that anal sex is most associated with gay men, is extremely misleading. The 10% figure given for heterosexuals is contradicted by other studies quoted in the article, so I question its inclusion at the top of the article, particularly since the study in question is nearly 4 years old now. Exploding Boy 15:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the opening doesn't say that. The 10% figure reflects how many heterosexual couples have anal sex regularly, not just those that have tried it once or a few times. Although the source for that figure isn't a very good source, the number seems plausible so I don't want to just get rid of it.

In my opinion, the proper comparison to determine whether straights or gays practice anal sex more would be the actual number of acts of anal sex; on that measure, I'm personally sure that gays would win in the US and most of the world.

This could of course be resolved if we had a source that went into such detail, but such statistics are not available. The way, the truth, and the light 15:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's extremely misleading. There's absolutely no way of knowing how many gay men practice anal sex, since nobody can even agree on how many gay men there are in the world. Or is this article talking only about America? And in what time period? The way that statistics and study results are being presented in this article is extremely biased and probably inaccurate. For example, "more heterosexuals [have anal sex] in absolute numbers, though their frequency of practice may not be as great" is pure original research: in other words, the fact that more people identify as heterosexual means that larger numbers of heterosexuals engage in anal sex, but gay men still do it more often !!!!!!!!! Exploding Boy 16:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. In your second sentence you seem to be saying we don't know anything. If so, how can you say the statistics are "probably inaccurate"? Of course, they may well be. Statistics on sexual practices often are because people lie! But we have to go with the evidence we have, and present it as accurately as possible. As for the absolute numbers line, that's not "pure original research", but it is an inference from the statistics that are availible, at least regarding the US. However, if you think it should be expressed less confidently, or more precisely, suggest better reasoning. Paul B 16:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article insists that gay men as a group engage in anal sex in larger numbers and more frequently than other people. This is unacceptable because: the studies quoted and compared haven't studied exactly the same populations (that is, they are't reproducible); there don't seem to be studies that specifically compare gay and straight anal sex practices; and it's not made clear which cultures and time periods we're talking about.

The statement "Anal sexual behavior is most often associated with male couples" is original research at its boldest: "associated with" by whom? What does "associated with" mean, anyway? What is meant by "anal sexual behavior"? And why male "couples" and not "men who have sex with men," as just one example? Exploding Boy 16:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say that; it discusses both gay and straight anal sex. We don't have perfect studies, I agree; but using that as an excuse to substitute in your personal opinions is not acceptable. Finally, I changed 'male couples' to 'male homosexuality'; it more clearly expresses the meaning. The way, the truth, and the light 16:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? The article does say that. I don't know why you bothered to post the above. Instead of responding to the concerns raised, the only thing you've done is accuse me of inserting my personal opinions into the article (which I haven't even edited for months!). Exploding Boy 17:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The article insists that gay men as a group engage in anal sex in larger numbers and more frequently than other people." Well the evidence would suggest that they do, but nevertheless the article "insists" on no such thing. However, I'm rather surprised that you think it is contentious that male gay couples are more likely to engage in anal sex than hetero couples. It remains unclear just what your concerns are. Paul B 13:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the evidence is unreliable. I'm not sure why you find it surprising; I'm simply not convinced that sufficient evidence exists to make such claims. Exploding Boy 15:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is unreliable, that's why we only say "survey A" and "survey B" says what they says. But saying the evidence is unreliable is not the same as saying there is no evidence, or that it is altogether worthless. There's quite a lot of evidence. What is surprising is your apparent belief that there is something problematic about the assertion that it most common amongst gay men. Do you perceive that as somehow homophobic? Why? Paul B 23:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not so much of a problem now that I've removed the rampant speculation on the matter from the intro. Exploding Boy 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "rampant speculation" was a cited statistic. The cite was not of a high quality, but it was certainly not speculation. Paul B 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was rampant speculation extrapolated by some editor here from an opinion piece on a lifestyle website. Exploding Boy 00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not. The source was written by written by Dr John Dean, specialist in sexual medicine and Dr David Delvin, GP and family planning specialist. user:Haiduc, for whatever reason, seems keen to insist that hetero a-s is more common than homo a-s. However, the statistical evidence can only reasonably be interpreted to state that in terms of numbers of individuals, those who have had hetrosexual a-s very likely outnumber those who have had homosexual a-s, but we can't make reasonable judgements about overall numbers of hetero and homo acts. Paul B 01:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website was tiscali.lifestyle. It was basically an opinion piece, a how-to, a guide, written by a so-called "specialist in sexual medicine" and a GP. It wasn't a scientific, peer-reviewed study. I don't think Haiduc is claiming that heterosexual anal sex is more common at all. I don't speak for him, but I think we're both saying that we should not be making claims about frequency among any population that cannot be backed up. Exploding Boy 01:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source and the statement originated with Haiduc. He added it in December last year [4]. So why do you suddenly object to it now? You did not apparently find it problematic until recently. I don't know why you feel you have to sneer at Dean and Delvin as "so called" specialists. No, it is not a scientific peer-reviewed source. But it is a legitimate one. Paul B 01:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the title of this section indicates Haiduc's preoccupations, as does his attempt, in this diff, to assert - contrary to the cite - that between 10% to 50% of heterosexual couples regularly practice it, so I don't think he is a model of restriction to claims that can be backed up, especially as he also deleted the citiation while making the assertion. I can only assume that's because he suddenly realised that his own source did not support his POV. [5]. Paul B 11:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the CV of "so called specialist" Dr John Dean can be found here.[6]. Paul B 11:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter how long a bad source has been in an article? There's no statute of limitations.

As I told that other user, on controversial articles like this one, the best course of action is to find reliable, scientific sources. Here, that means scientific studies, not the opinions of doctors given in articles they write for lifestyle websites. Exploding Boy 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the point is that it is not a bad source. It's an acceptable source from an individual who is clearly not a "nobody". It is the only source we currently have on the topic. If you can come up witrh a better one that's fine, but I'm having difficulty understanding your argument that's ot's beeter to remove reasonable sources than to find better ones. Paul B 16:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a good source, though:

An estimated one third of gay couples do not include anal intercourse in their lovemaking.

Estimated by whom? Where is it recorded?

About one third of heterosexual couples try it from time to time.

How do they know? And are we talking about heterosexual couples in England? In the UK? In the western world?

It is thought that about 10 per cent of heterosexual couples have anal intercourse as a regular feature of their lovemaking.

Thought by whom? According to what study?

In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples.

Again, how do they know? Where are they getting these numbers? What are the studies they've done or consulted? Again, this is more or less an opinion piece. It's taken from a lifestyle website. It's not scientific work, just conjecture--it may be informed conjecture, but it's conjecture nonetheless. Exploding Boy 16:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the authors is an expert. His is secretary of the British Society for Sexual and Impotence Research and a member of the Executive Committee of the European Society for Sexual and Impotence Research. That makes him a reliable source. We don't need every single detail of the evidence to accept the legitimacy of a source. That's what the whole concept of a reliable source means. The opinion of specialists is precisely what WP:RS is about. I suggest you look at it. Paul B 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say that these statistics should not be presented as scientific results, since they are, as EB points out, clearly just estimates; therefore if it is to be in the article, it should at least be presented as conjectural only. The presentation in the old article [7] was 'are said to practice it regularly', which I think is acceptable. The way, the truth, and the light 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already suggested that EB might offer ways in which the sentence could be better written, or more accrately expressed. Instead EB seems to prefer trying to argue that he knows better than an expert. He states that "it is not a good source" because he apparently disagrees with, or just doesn't like, some of the assertions in it. Arguing that an expert is wrong is called WP:OR. What he needs to do is find another expert who disagrees Paul B 07:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did rewrite it. Exploding Boy 15:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be obtuse. You deleted the reference and the information based on it. You know very well that's what we are talking about.Paul B 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from article

According to about 10% of heterosexual couples are said to practice it regularly.^[1]

This "article" is basically an opinion/how-to piece on a lifestyle website. It's not a study.

Studies have suggested that only about one in three women experiencing anal sex finds it pleasurable. ^[2]

This study was conducted for Marie Claire magazine. Not known for their reliable scientific studies. Exploding Boy 18:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know. I left your substantive changes in for now. I'm concerned though, that this removes information from the article. The second source you removed, for example, was our only source that said that most women reported not enjoying anal sex - not mentioning that could seem like censorship. The removal of the first source, likewise, in conjunction, may give the impression that the number is actually higher than 10%. The way, the truth, and the light 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call them substantial. And I wouldn't object to some decent sources to replace the ones that were removed. But as with other controversial articles, we need good, academic sources, not magazine surveys. Exploding Boy 21:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please thread your comments. Also, 'substantive' does not mean 'substantial'. The way, the truth, and the light 22:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "thread?" And yes, Substantive does mean substantial: considerable in amount or numbers : SUBSTANTIAL. Exploding Boy 22:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean properly indenting your comments with markup (like I've been doing). 'Substantive' did not mean 'substantial' as I used it; that's only one of the meanings listed in that dictionary, and not the most common one. The way, the truth, and the light 22:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments do not have to be indented ad infinitum. Exploding Boy 22:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you haven't been indenting at all. The way, the truth, and the light 22:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

The way, the truth, and the light: please give reasons for your reversions, and discuss them here. You've had problems with 3RR violations only recently; let's not make this an edit war here. Exploding Boy 22:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation is needed that I can see, as my revision that you reverted twice was simple cleanup. You clearly did not look at it closely before reverting, as you restored an obvious typo and improperly removed a tag.The way, the truth, and the light 09:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the only problem I can really see is the typo and the missing link. There was really no reason for a fairly major reversion covering several paragraphs, so I'm restoring them (sans errors). I've noticed you're rather quick to revert on this article. Other users rarely take kindly to such behaviour. Correct, don't revert. Exploding Boy 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest revert not only restored the typo, but also duplicated a sentence. Your argument seems to be that I can't edit your wording, which is silly. The way, the truth, and the light 17:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying correct, don't revert. You apparently have a history of edit warring. Instead of reverting changes wholesale to remove very small typing errors, just correct the errors. Exploding Boy 17:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can everyone please calm down. There is virtually no difference between the content of the two versions in the latest round of reverts (see WP:LAME). This whole war started when Exploding boy decided to remove some statistics he found objectionable (as far as I can tell). I think the editorial process would be much more productive if you focused your energies on this issue instead. Silly rabbit 17:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TWTTATL didn't object to the removal of that one small part. The issue is the use of wholesale reversion to correct 1 or 2 typos. The typos have been corrected now, so hopefully this will be the end of it. Exploding Boy 17:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong; as I stated above, I only pointed out the typos to show that you were reverting me without thinking. I reverted because I find your reverts unnecessary, as well as having substantive objections. For example, your re-ordering of the prostate section is illogical because it explains that only men have one before explaining why that's relevant, and your use of 'forced' in place of 'forcible' is incorrect. The way, the truth, and the light 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Let's not have another discussion about word choice, shall we? Pull out your trusty dictionary and thesaurus; "forced" is just fine, and in my view a much better choice than "forcible." The reordering of the prostate section results in the section making more sense, since the various names for the prostate now come at the beginning, rather than the end. Either way, I advise you not to continue pursuing your current habit of reverting, in view of the fact that you've recently received a rather long block for doing so. Exploding Boy 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually [8], the only change you made in the prostate section was moving the last sentence to the top; that may be defensible but it's hardly incontrovertible. I don't need a dictionary to tell me that 'forced' is wrong there, but the dictionary you used [9] does back me up: it gives two definitions for forced (adj.), neither of which apply here. The way, the truth, and the light 18:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. ;) Silly rabbit 17:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:The way, the truth, and the light, please explain why you think your version (Version B, here) of this portion of the article is so much better that you insist on reverting to it constantly.

Version A:

Besides penile insertion, anal sexual behavior includes fingering, fisting, and rimming (the manipulation of the anus by the mouth and tongue). Some individuals use sex toys such as dildos or butt plugs.

When a woman penetrates a man anally using a strap-on dildo this is referred to as pegging.

Version B:

Anal sex need not involve penile insertion. The active partner (male or female) may use appendages other than a penis, such as the fingers and a fist. The use of the mouth and tongue on the anus, called rimming is also common, often in conjuction with other sexual acts. He or she might also use an artificial device, often a phallic reproduction (dildo) or one that is generally engineered specifically for anal penetration (butt plug). When a female using a strap-on dildo) anally penetrates a receptive male, it is referred to as pegging.

Exploding Boy 22:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version B is clearly better written, and it is (excepting my minor edits) older; there was no reason for you to replace it with version A. I would suggest that you are probably not a good judge of writing quality if you can't understand the difference between 'forced' and 'forcible' or between 'substantive' and 'substantial'. The way, the truth, and the light 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's a complete non-answer that offers no reasonable or convincing explanation. I'm going to restore the changes you reverted. Exploding Boy 00:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an answer, and it's at least as good as what you've given. You made the initial change; you should be able to give a reasonable explanation. The way, the truth, and the light 02:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You never asked, but since you do now, I rewrote it for clarity, brevity, and encyclopaedic style. Exploding Boy 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why all the agony over a few simple things on anal sex? You know that months after whatever version is set some unknown guy is going to slide in out of nowhere, enter quickly, and change it. And unless you watch this article for the rest of your life and revert them all, even sleeping uneasily in case somebody tries to do something you don't like when you're sleeping, it will eventually get changed from your prefered version. SakotGrimshine 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only because there is clearly no reason for his reverts, except that he prefers his own version. Exploding Boy 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recent issues

Frankly, I agree; it's ridiculous to be arguing over two so similar versions of the same thing. However, I will note that I have found that dealing with User:The way, the truth, and the light to be extremely frustrating. The fact that a certain portion of an article has remained unchanged for some time is not testament to its superiority. Wikipedia is endlessly editable, and unless a version is developed that features permanent, static articles that are judged to have reached their pinnacle, everything is subject to change. I request that User:The way, the truth, and the light bear this in mind when editing, and refrain from immediately reverting or making changes to other users' edits, as has been his habit, at least recently on this page. Rather than wholesale reversions, please make improvements and corrections, and avoid creating the impression of edit warring or a sense of ownership of the article. Exploding Boy 00:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's ridiculous, why are you doing it? A section that's been there for a long time should not be changed without some reason. Once again you're trying to impose restrictions on me that should apply at least as much to yourself. The way, the truth, and the light 02:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, why do you feel the need to revert a simple rewrite of a section that retains all of the information therein? If you think that the relative age of an edit or page version means something you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how editing works here. Exploding Boy 16:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that things shouldn't be changed just for the sake of changing them. In general, reinstating an edit after being reverted, as you have done, indicates that you place substantial importance on it. If the two really are equivalent, why do you fell it's that important? The way, the truth, and the light 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, is the subject you're arguing over. SakotGrimshine 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I have fully protected this article until you guys can reach a consensus on wording or what not. Edit warring is a bad idea, please discuss and be willing to compromise a little on each side. When you feel that you can edit this article without warring feel free to let me know and I will review the progress and unprotect this article. Thanks and good luck. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal issues

This section deals exclusively with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. I suggest that it be expanded with legal issues from the rest of the world. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analsex and evolution

I would like to place this as a new topic right before the "Legal issues".:)

Analsex and evolution

It has been proposed that analsex has evolved as a part of the history of evolution by means of strenghening the social bonds in a group of animals. Some of the arguments are the observation of analsex in different animal species (Bonobo, Bison, a.o.) and that the prostate gland beyond its normal function also serves as a kind of “G-spot”. Its important to notice that the frequency of analsex between the observed animals are extremely rare and that the “G-spot” argument is very speculative and thereby the hypothesis seems to be very week. On the contrary, individuals that uses their sexual energy on vaginal sex must donate more genes to the next generation and thereby drive the evolution in that direction. The health risks of analsex are also higher than both vaginal and oralsex because of injuries and infections. The human species has most likely the higest frequency of analsex in nature and the cause is probably the very massive exposion of sex in the medias. Analsex is thereby more a cultural than a biological phenomenon.

I took to editting the paragraph above due to ludicrously bad spelling errors such as spelling 'extremely', 'frequency' and 'phenomenon' incorrectly. After that, I can't seem to grasp the point you're making, or believe much of what was said. Alex 23:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section is in need of rewriting. It contains "weasel words" and fails to distinguish evolution (in the largely understood biological sense) from cultural and societal changes over time. The cited statements may have relevance to other existing sections, but this section is poised for removal per WP:OR and/or WP:POV. HalJor 23:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted this section, all these claims were being made and the citations that were supposed to be supporting them were only vaguely on-topic and often said nothing to support the specifics of what they were being used as references for. It was also very OR and we already have a redirect for animal sexuality at the top of the page.Velps 17:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t agree with this. Its only very general biological arguments..Biolog2 08:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very weak and largely unsupported. The footnote "supporting" your claim re the bonobos never even mentions anal sex - to say whether it's rare or not. The claim that its popularity is all down to "the medias" (sic) is contradicted by historical evidence that it has been prevalent since antiquity. Paul B 11:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree... if anal sex was common it would have been mentioned in the detailed dissciption of sex between bonobos. -and culture did exist in the antiquity and besides frequency of anal sex is rising resently..Biolog2 07:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course culture existed but "the media" did not. Culture was determined by social norms. The fact is that this section is not accepted by consensus. Paul B 11:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a question about this at the reference desk, if anyone cares. A.Z. 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but in the end it seemed to be a rather unproductive discussion. Paul B 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK this section was put back up again and I deleted it again, so I'm going to go through what was wrong with it step by step

first of all penile-anal intercourse is not rare in bonobo chimps, its unheard of, not that the reference cited makes any mention whatsoever of this (picking and choosing sources to make an argument from silence from isn't a legitimate form of source citation), on the other hand "rump rubbing" which is a sexual behavior involving the anus, is apparently common [10]

- analingus and anal fingering have been observed in common chimps [11], I just thought that was worth pointing out given the sections emphasis on bonobos

"anal intercourse is common" among buffalo [12], its also common in bighorn sheep [13]

the citation for the statement that "the “G-spot” argument is very speculative" [14] merely states that the prostate is not responsible for male erection, nothing more,

"All in all the hypothesis of anal sex as a part of the history of evolution seems to be very weak. The human species has most likely the higest frequency of anal sex in nature" this is a very bold, uncited statement, you need a credible citation for something like this

"Anal sex is thereby more a cultural than a biological phenomenon." the citations for this are just the bonobo link used earlier and a page in German with no translation

Wikipedia is not for Original Research, this whole paragraph frequently seems to be evaluating hypothoses and drawing conclusions and making an argument, thats OR

Velps 15:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a citation from the source[15]: "Male Bonobos also have a wide variety of homosexual interactions. Sometimes, two males mutually stimulate each other's genitals using a face-to-face position similar to GG-Rubbing: one male lies on his back and spreads his legs while the other thrusts on him, rubbing their erections together (in this and all other homosexual activity, anal penetration is not involved)."

Please read the resume in the end of the danish article(not german..)

The "G-spot" in the ear is also difficult to find a source that contradicts..

I don´t think its´OR when I only use basical biological science and common observations.Biolog2 06:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes thats exactly the statement I was refering to when I said penile-anal intercourse is unheard of in bonobo chimps, whats your point?

2. OK, its says that anal sex is rare in Danish adolescents, thats a good example of these citations which are vaguely on-topic but say nothing of what they are supposed to support

3. yes but its also hard to find a source that supports the G-spot in the ear, thats the crucial difference

4. an edit is OR if:

It introduces a new theory or method of solution
It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position
It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source

first off the way you were using sources isn't valid, simply finding sources that had nothing to say about, for example: anal sexual behabior in bonobo, or the male g-spot, then trying to make an argument from silence that those things don't exist. Secondly you were putting those sources together build an argument and evaluate an idea, rather than citing a source that made that argument, thats Original Research.

Velps 16:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prostata

I have deletet the topic because the sources where of no scientific value.Biolog2 08:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources can be improved, but they're ok. And the material is true, so it can stay. Next time, please follow the list at Template:Verify source/doc.--BMF81 11:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are unscientific and the statements are wrong, so it has to be moved.Biolog2 13:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the sources are from scientific journals. Others are from acceptable, but not scholarly sites. For example the second source is from a TV pundit, but she is described as "Canada's foremost sexual educator and counsellor, recipient of the distinguished Order of Canada". The first source is not ideal, but what it says is uncontroversial. Why not find a better source rather than deleting content because you don't like it? Also, if you are to contribute to Talk please respond to criticisms rather than just denying them. Paul B 13:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No natural lubrication?

This statement is patently false. The rectum can and does respond to physical stimulation (by fingers etc.) by producing mucus. This is obviously not the same a vaginal lubrication which is produced "in anticipation", and it is important to stress that lubricants be used. I would like to see this statement either amended or given a reference. 85.22.18.170 09:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

As no reason for the reversion of the images I added was given, I reverted in turn. For explanation: The original lead painting gives undue weight to a Western "Bilical style" interpretation of anal sex, as whatever the subject depicted a Judeo-Christian perspective is one against the practice. There is already a Western, Judeo-Christian image in the apropriate place. But style and neutrality issues aside, the image I switched it to is more illustrative of the literal physical mechanics of anal sex. I included the shunga image as it is part of A: an established artistic and cultural tradition involving anal sex and B: more clearly depicts the act. I added the butt plug (god that word is so foul-sounding) because it demonstrates visually what the adjacent passage is speaking of in reference to non-penile anal sex. Obviously the "Roman and youth" image is a good archaeological depiction of the act's prevalence in antiquity, and I believe it is preferable to the artistic interpretation in the below image. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'Bilical style' a position I'm unaware of? I've no idea how a picture of Hadrian by a 19C painter of erotica can be considered a "Judeo-Christian" image. It's about as un-Judeo-Christian as can be imagined. However, I agree that the Shunga is the best image for actually displaying the act. I's sad that it's keen kept from the main spot by various odten incomprehensible ideological agendas. Paul B 17:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadrian image

Why has this image been removed? I am not saying that it should be the first image, but it's definitely instructive. A.Z. 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see my reasoning above. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you people find a better more enjoyable image of people depicting anal sex? There's plenty of porn out there. Mechasam

It would certainly be good if the images were more enjoyable, but I think there may be some reason why people prefer old paintings. Do you have any specific suggestions? A.Z. 06:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that an old painting of two men having anal sex sort of gives the impression that anal sex is a homosexual act. If you remove SafeSearch from Google search and type in 'anal sex' there's plenty of pictures to choose from.... I don't know, what would you prefer? Anal sex is anal sex, regardless if it's a painting of two old men doing it to each other or a hot chick getting it from behind... I guess lol.Mechasam

There's a general view that porn images should not be used, though I don't think there is any policy as such. It's more a question of taste. The problem with hetero images is that most artwork depicting hetero sex from the rear could easily be depicting vaginal sex "doggy style". Paul B 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations are preferable as they do not involve consent issues (in the way that a living image does). Using porn images lifted from Google is a violation of WP:IMAGES, as they are almost definitely a copyright violation. They don't really fall under a fair use doctrine as there is almost always another way of depicting the matter. As to the sexual orientation issue, I do not think it seriously matters. The best image is that which most clearly depicts the mechanics of the act of anal sex. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with trying to make the article more enjoyable for everyone. We should try to find a picture of man-woman anal sex that clearly demonstrates that it is anal sex; not to replace the man-man picture, though. There should be a man-man picture as well. A.Z. 22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't objecting to including variations on the theme. I was just reiterating our first priority. But I do think the article needs a heterosexual image of the practice. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Issues

The term "cocksuckers" redirects here. I think, like "cocksucker" singular, it should redirect to Oral and not Anal sex. -Rapturerocks 15:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, sorry; I just did it. -Rapturerocks 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapturerocks (talk • contribs)

Persistent homosexualization of this article

Since anal sex is practiced by both heterosexuals and homosexuals, in varying proportions depending on time and place, and there are many times more heterosexuals than homosexuals (20 to 1 by curent estimates) it is an egregious POV infraction to first discuss male/male practices instead of female/male practices.

By the same token, featuring a male/male image at the beginning of the article, without an equivalent male/female image preceding it, is inappropriate and misleading, and only caters to the misconceptions of some who associate the practice with the homosexual community. Haiduc 11:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the article mentions both heterosexual and homosexual anal sex, then quibbling over the relative position of sections and images seems a lot of fuss about something rather unimportant. If you think the article would be better if the male/female anal sex part was higher up, then why not move it? Exploding Boy 15:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haiduc, you have removed [16] the Hadrian image from the article, without saying that you had done it on the edit summary. You have also changed the order of sections just saying "balance" in the edit summary. You also have repeatedly [17] [18]removed the hygiene section, without saying in the edit summary that you had done so. I find it unhelpful to use edit summaries only to justify your edits, when you can as easily explain what you have actually done. It took me some time to find in the history which diff was the one in which you removed the Hadrian image.

No one knows how many homosexuals and heterosexuals there are. Estimates vary greatly, and research is extremely hard to do. I don't know where you read that only 1/20 of people are sexually attracted by people of the same sex, but it seems to me this is underestimated.

Even if we knew how many homosexuals there are, and it were 1/20 of people, yet this would be no argument for changing the order of sections and order of images. Even if homosexuals were 1/200 of the population, it would still be perfectly acceptable to start the article with a man-man picture.

As for the "misconceptions of some who associate the practice with the homosexual community", the article should just state the facts that we have available. I am skeptical that Wikipedia readers would take a certain position of the sections to mean that Wikipedia says that "anal sex is a gay thing" and take another position of the sections to mean the complete opposite that "anal sex is not a gay thing". If that's how people read our articles, we may as well give up on the project. People should read the text, think critically, and check the sources. A.Z. 18:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to echo AZ's statements above. Being bold is fine, but doing things such as completely removing the lead image is not okay. Not only was the Japanese image the only one actually showing the physical mechanism of anal sex, but there must be a lead image situated to the right per WP:MOS#Images. I suggest you review basic guidelines and policy before making such drastic alterations. Also, nearly 100% of reliable sources touch upon hygiene when speaking of anal sex. It's quite simply an essential part of providing information on the topic. VanTucky ^Talk 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I missed the discussion here. In reverse order, I will not object to a lead image if there is consensus for it, but I will substitute a male/female one when I come across one. The mechanics of the activity are not of the essence, for obvious reasons.

I do not understand what all the fuss is about hygiene. The section is still there, the only thing missing was a paragraph which made great efforts to convince readers there was "only" a little bit of shit to contend with. It made the article sound like the spiel of some carnival huckster trying hard to convince the rubes that it was ok to stick it in. We are not here to either promote or condemn. Otherwise, we are in perfect agreement, hygiene is very important, and if I am not mistaken I was the one who created the section a while ago. Haiduc 00:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided sufficient evidence as to why a heterosexual image would be automatically better than a homosexual one. The only issues to consider are normal quality, both aesthetic and informational. The best image is that which most clearly illustrates anal sex, and nothing else. To say that illustrating the mechanics of the act of anal sex are not part of the basic encyclopedic job is folly, pure and simple. Honestly, this solo campaign accusing the article of some kind of agenda to label anal sex as solely or primarily homosexual smacks of bad faith and WP:POINT. The goal here is to be a good reference work on anal sex in general, and edits which place more importance on correcting some presumed bias that no one else acknowledges detracts from the project. VanTucky ^Talk 02:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the quality of a picture being important. And I was frankly surprised to see that I was the only one arguing these points, and it made me wonder whether I was off base. Writing about homosexual topics, as I largely do, can sometimes make you paranoid. But, as they say, even paranoids have enemies. If there is no agenda touted here, certainly you will not oppose my switching the initial sections, so that male/female sex is discussed before male/male sex, especially in view of the fact that in overall numbers the former obviously far outstrips the latter - 30% of 90% vs. 80% of 10%, even using the generous estimate that 10% of the population has same-sex relations and 80% of them engage in anal sex, resulting in a 27 to 8 ration favoring hetero anal sex. We could take another tack, that only five percent are gay, and only sixty percent of them engage in anal sex, yielding a proportion of 3% gay anal vs. 30% straight anal, in the general population, a ten to one ratio favoring the straights. It stands to reason that an article should first discuss the most popular form of a practice before that which is significantly more rare, does it not?. (I hope no one else here subscribes to the misleading and false "no one knows how many homosexuals and heterosexuals there are" proposed above by A.Z. No one knows how many molecules of water are in a given gallon jug, but that does not mean we will die of thirst because we cannot define a gallon of water. Approximations are all we have to go on, even in calculus, and it is pure mischief to claim that we do not know something because we do not know everything.) Haiduc 03:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The test for this change is whether its supporting stats are to be found in reliable, published sources. You have consistently failed to provide any in your arguments, and thus the idea that heterosexual anal sex is more prominent (and that the article should reflect that) do not meet the requirements of verifiability. VanTucky ^Talk 04:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your failure to engage the discussion in a meaningful way, and your failure to respond to the figures I provided above, figures based on statistics available in the article as well as blatantly obvious and universally known facts about the incidence of homosexuality in modern Western societies, will warrant a POV tag. We are here to collaborate, not to spoon feed each other. Let alone the fact that you have done nothing to support your position, which you just revealed, that homosexual anal sex has a greater incidence. Haiduc 04:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never said that there is a greater incidence of homosexual anal sex, and it's probably a statistical impossibility if you're talking sheer numbers (considering that homosexuals are in the minority). What I am saying is that we can't make alterations of any kind to the article based on statistics we don't have here. You either provide a citation to a reliable source, or no cigar. That's WP:V. We aren't here to speculate. VanTucky ^Talk 04:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud! If there were one homosexual person in this world, the section about male-male anal sex would still have to be the first, for the simple fact that it was there first. No, there is no "editorial" reason for it to be the first, nor for the other section to be the first. I haven't checked the initial versions of this article, and I can assure you: if someone tells me that the section about male-female anal sex was the first first, and then someone changed the order, then I say it shall be made the first again. Both sections are worth the same, and the ideal solution for this would be for them to be in the same place somehow. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's articles are constrained by time and space, and we can't read it all at once nor place all information in the same place, so something has to go first and something has to go second. In fact, making them be in the same place and time somehow would not be the ideal solution, as it would be even better if people didn't think that something being discussed first in an article in Wikipedia has any hidden meaning, such as that the subject that comes first is more "important" than something that is discussed on a section below. A.Z. 04:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the first version of the article, from 2001. The first sentence to refer to practice by heterosexuals and homosexuals is "Although practiced by many heterosexual couples, it has often been associated with homosexual men." Heterosexual couples were mentioned first, so the section about male-female anal sex should be the first, according to my reasoning above. As I said, they are both equally important and this can be the only criterion used to decide which one comes first. A.Z. 05:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that both of you are focusing on the image now, while I was all the time referring to the order of sections, responding to Haiduc's post saying that "it is an egregious POV infraction to first discuss male/male practices instead of female/male practices" before they said "By the same token, featuring a male/male image at the beginning of the article, without an equivalent male/female image preceding it, is inappropriate and misleading, and only caters to the misconceptions of some who associate the practice with the homosexual community." I gave my opinion about the section. I think that the rule should apply to the image as well: if there are two images with equal quality, the one that came first should stay in the lead. None of the practices (by heterosexual and homosexual couples) is more significant, notable, or important than the other. Even if it were, there would be no way to verify that. Certainly the numbers and percentages of people of both orientations who do it is pretty much irrelevant, and, even if it were relevant, it's unverifiable. A.Z. 05:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Wikipedia articles are subject to "merciless editing"; it says so at the bottom of every edit window. That means, among other things, that the order in which information is given can be altered. Having said that, I really don't think it matters whether the paragraph(s) on or images about opposite-sex anal sex come(s) before the one(s) on same-sex anal sex or vice-versa. As long as the relevant information is there, it's all the same. By the same token, if somebody wants to move them because they think doing so will improve the article, then by all means, be bold.

There would be a problem if, as on the sex positions article, the focus was exclusively on either hetero- or homo- sexual practitioners; in this case that doesn't appear to be true. In other words, all this is a bit of a tempest in a teacup. Exploding Boy 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If only it were a tempest in a teacup! But the fact that a tempest has been stirred up should warn us that this is a far bigger space we are in. However, we seem to be approaching a strange type of consensus. EB claims that he is indifferent to which section leads. AZ wants the boys first because "it has always been that way." But that argument is a joke, as EB points out, and I hope for AZ's sake that he made it with tongue firmly in cheek, as the alternative for him is grim. VanT agrees that it is a statistical impossibility that homo sex acts are more numerous than hetero sex acts. But he thinks that we need definite proof. Well, to that I say that we need definite proof that a statistical impossibility has occurred to keep things as they are. In the absence of that, we will write this article in a way that reflects common sense AND statistical certainty. I feel strongly that it is a very important issue we are addressing here, I believe that the reversal of what should be the natural order of the article reflects either the influence of an urban myth, or a pro-gay-anal-sex pose, or an anti-gay "lets tar the fags with the turd-burglar monicker" pose. None of these have any place in a Wikipedia article. Haiduc 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)For once I am in total agreement with Haiduc. The only certainty is that anal sex needs one man and either a woman or a man and the idea that gay anal sex is more common is extremely unlikely as statistically even in the open west homosexuality only accounts (I believe) for one in 10 of all sexual relations. Go figure, SqueakBox 23:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again you misconstrue my words. We do not edit articles based on the truth, only verifiability. What I guess about sexuality stats has no bearing on the course this article will take, and should not. VanTucky ^Talk 23:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like this, without stats then we shoyuld go with common sense, SqueakBox 23:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VanT, you are using a "stare decisis" approach to the writing of an article, but such a rule does not exist here, we are not in a court of law. It is not precedence but reason that determines the form of an article. Haiduc 00:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's by no means obvious that heterosexual anal sex is more common. Let's assume that active heterosexuals are 20 times more numerous, as stated above. Further, we'll say that 65% of male homosexuals regularly participate in anal sex (the average of the two figures given) but that only 10% of heterosexual couples do. Finally, we might guess that the average of those homosexuals does the act twice a week whereas the average heterosexual in that number does twice a month. Those numbers give a 4:3 advantage to homosexual anal sex. I don't know whether they are correct but they are certainly plausible.

I believe what VanTucky and I are saying is that your motives here are questionable and that when a change to an article isn't clearly right or wrong (according to our olicies etc.) then it is proper to consider that. You have repeatedly complained of 'homosexualization' of the article, essentially stating that your aim is to dissociate the concept of anal sex from homosexuality. This is not a legitimate goal for an encyclopedia; given that the numbers state that a majority of heterosexual have never had anal sex, it is not unreasonable of them to make that association, is it? The way, the truth, and the light 13:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TW, I will not speculate where you pulled that 10% figure out of, and it is immaterial. As you will see from the statistics, over one third of heterosexual men practice anal sex, not "10 percent"! And a for personal frequency, the same uncertainty applies to both hetero and homo practitioners. Your "guesses" are tendentious and self-serving, and your obvious agenda to shove the homosexualization of anal sex down the throats of Wikipedia readers is transparently pov. Your "logic" is the perfect example of how things are twisted here. My opposition to that agenda and to the distortion of this article for personal political purposes can in no way be construed as an attempt "to dissociate the concept of anal sex from homosexuality," which I have never done. Haiduc 03:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 10% figure is not only my guess, it's found in the reference that you just added back into the article. Do you think that's unreliable? I discussed before the difference between those that have ever had anal sex and those that have it regularly. It is clear that those ought to be different. I never said my figures were certain; of course they aren't. They do show that you can't claim that the relative frequency is 'obvious' as you have been doing.

As far as your goal, you admitted it at the start of this section (and also before), I don't need to assume it. I have also admitted my agenda, which is to guard against that and against the promotion of heterosexual anal sex as a normal practice. Nothing more. The way, the truth, and the light 15:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to have a balanced article, not one that perpetuates the self serving delusion that anal sex is something engaged in by the "other" in society. We have a long history of passing off stigmatized activities onto social groups other than one's own. The Athenians did it when they coined "spartanize" as a synonym for anal sex. The English did it when they referred to the clap as "the French disease" even though tens of thousands of prostitutes walked the streets of London at the time. And statistics consistently show that anal sex is widely practiced by heterosexuals in modern times (about one third of heteros vs. about two thirds for homos). But a few Wiki editors desperately cling to the fantasm that anal sex is a gay specialty, to the disservice of our readers. Your "guardianship," TW, is nothing but an act of vigilantism that reflects on nothing else but yourself, it is a piece of self-exposure that we can do without here. Haiduc 03:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no ground for you to consider 'balance' associating anal sex primarily with heterosexuals. You did not respond at all to my discussion of the figures: again, how can you argue against the 10% figure that's in the reference you just added? We're not discussing here the history of how anal sex was viewed, so that's irrelevant.

The fact remains that you are admittedly trying to compromise this article by using it to advance a personal opinion (namely, that anal sex ought to be considered a heterosexual thing). The way, the truth, and the light 18: 02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox: only if we assume that anal sex means strictly the insertion of a penis into an anus.

Not having read the article for a while, what I can say right now is this: it should be written as neutrally and inclusively as possible. In other words, any relevant information that is specific to male-male and male-female penis/anus insertion should be discussed (ditto relevant specific information about other types of insertive anal sex), and the balance of the article, which should actually be the bulk of the article, should be non-specific. On the Sex positions article we ultimately decided on gender neutral terms such as "insertive partner" and "penetrating partner" or similar.

The argument that having a lead image that depicts male-male anal sex is somehow perpetuating an evil myth about gay men's sex habits seems wildly hyperbolic to me, as does the argument that having one section above another does the same. As I said before: by all means reorganize, rewrite, re-whatever. That's what Wikipedia is about. Exploding Boy 06:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haiduc, there was obviously not a consensus to switch to the male-female image on those grounds alone, and the Avril image you switched is not better than the shunga print. Nothing in the Commons description of the Avril print says that it's anal sex, and penetration has not occurred. Anal sex is the penetration of the anus, and an image which doesn't show that act as clearly as another is not more desirable. Stop pushing changes on an article based on an ulterior motive, let's judge the images based on how well they illustrate the content, shall we? VanTucky ^Talk 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what order the article goes in, as long as it includes equal info on hetero and homosexual anal sex. Also, reverting wholesale TWTTaL, is not okay. Many good edits were made by people other than Haiduc in the meantime, and the version you reverted to is really bad. It has bad image placement and sizing, has lots of minor grammatical and MoS problems that were fixed. Please reach a consensus before reverting. VanTucky ^Talk 18:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert exactly to any previous version. I tried to clean up some of the grammar problems and such. I went back to your version of the images for now. The way, the truth, and the light 18:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: Image rebalancing

I balanced an image but totally didn't realize I had done it right after a potentially controversial image change on the summary image. Anyhow, I just figured I'd add this little note so that in case undos fly or whatever, you might keep balancing some of the images in the back of your mind (so that they're not all on the right side). Cheers. =) --slakr^\ talk / 00:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing vs. the defense of personal territory

If I might sidestep the strident accusations and desperate editing for a moment, let me remind everyone here that the essence of collaboration is not the destruction of information contributed by editors whose contributions make you uncomfortable, but the rebuttal of their statements by means of scientific data. The former damages the article, while the latter improves it.

Therefore, those of you who feel that anal sex has nothing to do with heterosexual sexuality and pleasure would be advised to back up your opinion not by 1. the deletion of images that depict heterosexual anal sex, and the foregrounding of other images showing males thus engaged, or 2. giving emphasis to homosexual issues by discussing them first and downplaying heterosexual ones, but by the use of statistical data showing that indeed heterosexuals have nothing to do with this activity, and it is strictly the domain of men who have sex with men. Of course, if the data indicate otherwise, it is to be hoped that you would have the intellectual integrity to let that data - and not your preconceived notions - determine the content of the article.

So, to reiterate, please remember that we are not here to fight with each other but to write an article that reflects the current state of scientific understanding of this practice. Haiduc 19:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. No one until you had this problem. I don't know why you insist on accusing me of some hidden bias. I have never asserted that 'anal sex has nothing to do with heterosexual sexuality', either. I have said that it can't be regarded as an important part given that a majority of heterosexuals have never done it (and most likely have no inclination to).

The numbers should be allowed to speak for themselves in terms of how common the two types of anal sex are, and as I reminded you before, asserting that heterosexual must be more common is OR. I showed above that, given the figures we have now (and common sense) we can't determine. The way, the truth, and the light 06:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree on one thing: the numbers do speak for themselves. The fact that they seem to be saying something else to you than to me, and some sources, is irrelevant. Haiduc 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we disagree is an indication that they do not clearly say what you think they say. Your speculation simply doesn't belong here, especially since you've admitted to bad motives. The way, the truth, and the light 00:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The record of disciplinary actions taken by the Wikipedia authorities in order to keep your (mis)behavior in check speaks far more loudly than I could, if you would like to turn the talk here to the topic of "bad motives." Whether you are aware of it or not, they, and I, have been very patient with you. Haiduc 01:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I can be sure you don't have any argument. My blocks, even if entirely justified, had nothing to do with 'motives'. The way, the truth, and the light 05:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've had enough of reading this little argument. Please take it to user talk or email. Exploding Boy —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you all that this is not a meta-discussion space or chat. Take it to talkspace, IRC or email please. VanTucky ^Talk 18:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of having no lead image

I just removed the lead image, I understand its something of a convention to have one in wikipedia articles, but I just don't think its helpful here , each section is well illustrated and I don't think the article needs one big image to sum it upVelps 18:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Invariably it will be open to attack as biased,all the more so when the lead picture depicts a minoritarian scene. Haiduc 02:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason not to have a lead image, or any consensus to remove it. Exploding Boy 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there had been no lead image for awhile before recent edits, and considering the controversy surrounding it I wouldn't say there is a consensus on having it. The reason not to have a lead image is that just automatically assuming the lead image should be a heterosexual couple is heterosexist, but automatically assuming that the lead image should be a gay couple seems to bother some people too. I suppose the shunga image of a man having sex with a cross-dresser could be considerd the happy medium in a way, but in practice its even more loaded since the bottom is male sexed and presenting as a woman it sort of excludes almost everyone (there's also the cultural issues surrounding using an "exotic" traditional Japanese image to illustrate an english article). What we have now on the other hand is a pair of "twin" images in the same style by the same artist and both are near the top which works out a lot better in terms of balance, neither one could be said to illustrate the whole topic, but each one illustrates its own section very well.Velps 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolute nonsense. All good articles should have a lead image, and we are directly admonished to have one per WP:MOS#Images, as well as other criteria. "Not helpful" is not a valid reason to remove what is an essential illustrative tool, and a convention of the Manual of Style. You give no evidence as to why it isn't helpful or biased. The only one who has been babbling about "homosexual bias" is Haiduc, and an image illustrating anal sex is something the article MUST have. If you can find an image that plainly and clearly illustrates anal sex, then go ahead and replace it. But removing a key factor that is a directly recommended by the Manual of Style with no replacement is not an improvement to the article. As to the above comments about content of the image. It is pure folly to apply modern and Western strictures of morality to what is an antiquated image of the ancient Japanese tradition of homosexuality, which has a much different aesthetic and moral ethos. VanTucky ^Talk 19:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not admonsihed to do anything, and it it is not something the article MUST have the manual says "Some general guidelines which should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason not to:". Haiduc was not "babbling" he had a point. Velps 20:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you give no evidence why a lead image does more harm than good, there is no compelling reason, not to mention that a clear consensus is required to trump guidelines. VanTucky ^Talk 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the switch to two lead images. That works, but the Japanese image should be in "non-Western cultures" if it's not the lead. VanTucky ^Talk 20:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Velps 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The present arrangement of the intro works well for me too. I have some objections to the Non-Western cultures treatment, however. For one thing, it is mistake (which I already corrected once) to label Japanese practices as "unique." For another, the full version of this particular shunga is much nicer, and just as explicit. Since the "detail" image is probably close to or more than 50% of the full version, I suggest we use the full version. Furthermore, I think it would be instructive to also have an image of a man/woman couple from Greco-Roman times. We have a few from which to choose, if I am not mistaken. Other than that all is well, and thanks to Velps for injecting a civil tone into this discussion. Haiduc 22:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally, if you read the article on Japanese homosexuality, it is unique. The detail is there because the article about anal sex, not shunga. So whichever image more clearly shows anal sex is better. VanTucky ^Talk 22:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked Homosexuality in Japan and the word "unique" does not occur on the page, and even if it did, that discussion belongs there and not here. As for size, I agree with you that taking a small detail out of a much larger picture if often appropriate, but just hacking away the edges of a picture when the whole would do just as well is butchery. Using your argument, we should crop all the other pictures too, and just focus on the genital areas since this article is about anal sex and not about slaves waving fans or what have you. Haiduc 22:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come now, just because the word doesn't appear doesn't make aspects of it unique. I'd be happy to go in for examples if you like. As to the other point, don't be ridiculous. Making sure an image is focused doesn't automatically mean it is taken to the extreme. Some context is obviously necessary in images, it's just part of good composition. But the current edit of the shunga print is cropped correctly. It has plenty of context to show that it is both a print and Japanese, as well as clearly showing the act. VanTucky ^Talk 22:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so prove it. Exactly how is Japanese homosexuality unique, as depicted in the print in question? And I understand that you believe the print is cropped correctly, and it may be. My argument is that there is no need to crop it at all, it works even better in the full version as it shows that they are in a bedroom, and it preserves the horizontality of the composition, which has been forced into an unnatural and awkward vertical format by the poor cropping. Haiduc 22:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think those two images look great. a.z. 04:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again: tempest in a teacup. The article is better with an image. There's no reason not to have one. There's no reason to object to one particular type of image over another. Just find a bloody image and put it there. This is the most ridiculous type of bickering over what really amounts to nothing. Exploding Boy 01:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars? a.z. 03:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think it's agreed now that we can have two lead images. I don't think it's an ideal solution, but it's acceptable given the problem with finding any appropriate images for this article. Also, I think they look better there than in the previous positions. The way, the truth, and the light 06:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Dean, John (2004). "Anal Sex". Tiscali.co.u. NetDoctor.co.uk. Retrieved 2007-04-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) "There is a common misconception that anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men..."
^ "Les pratiques sexuelles des Françaises" (in French). TNS/Sofres. Retrieved 2007-04-30.Survey carried out by TNS/Sofres in a representative sample of 500 women from 18 to 65 years of age, in April and May, 2002.

[1] Dean, John (2004). "Anal Sex". Tiscali.co.u. NetDoctor.co.uk. Retrieved 2007-04-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) "There is a common misconception that anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men..."

[French-2] "Les pratiques sexuelles des Françaises" (in French). TNS/Sofres. Retrieved 2007-04-30.Survey carried out by TNS/Sofres in a representative sample of 500 women from 18 to 65 years of age, in April and May, 2002.

[1]

[2]